[MD] What does Pirsig mean by metaphysics?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi to you John

26 Jan:

Bo before:
> > The MOQ says that Quality=Reality=Experience" is split along the
> > dynamic/static axis. There is no unscathed
> > Quality/Reality/Experience left behind after the split.

John:
> I thought the MoQ said Quality is indefinable.  Definitionally so!

Jeez are you determined to drive me nuts? DQ is dynamic which 
means every adjective of ineffable there are, but in this dynamic 
medium there has formed static patterns. Like waves on the ocean 
surface or currents deep down can be discerned,yet being "ocean" 
(water) all the same. Now don't start objecting to this, it's a metaphor. 

> > Please give me ONE example of a slice - if not of the highest
> > quality, yet a quality one - different from the DQ/SQ?

> How about subjects and objects?  The world of appreciations, the world
> of description?

SOM robbed of its metaphysical rank  (during a ceremony in front of 
the MD) and the remnant S/O relegated the role of MOQ intellectual 
level surely makes the subject/object slice valuable, the highest static 
such. But I meant a different metaphysics from the DQ/SQ one.    

John be-before
> > > In this metaphysics, experience is generated by Quality.  There is
> > > no pre-valuation of anything.  Until something is valued, it
> > > doesn't exist. That's the MoQ, and why, in MoQ terms, unpatterned
> > > is a fallacy.

Bo before
> > This smacked right. "Unpatterned is a fallacy". That's my point.
> > Quality as something after the DQ/DQ divide is  a fallacy. An even
> > greater fallacy is it that it can be divided innumerably ways and
> > still be Quality.

John now:
> Maybe I should say equating "unpatterned" with "something" is
> fallacious thinking. 

True! DQ is dynamic that's all that can be said. 

> True chaos or randomness is pretty rare in nature,
> and by it's nature is virtually invisible to us.  I can postulate pure
> non-patterned reality, I can imagine such a thing as possibly existing,
> but I can't see any reason to make it the source of being.  That's the
> problem I have with morOnism - it's not that I don't believe chaos and
> chance exist, I just don't believe that chaos and chance are the source
> of my existence.  I'm an "m"oQist, the source of my being was my
> mommy's tummy. 

Nature is what we call "the static inorganic level and chaos is absent 
inside the static range.

Bodvar.