[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Krimel]

[Bo]
OK, forget the spawning, but in the previous post (below) you 
described the Yang/Yin as corresponding more or less to the DQ/SQ.

    The static dynamic split was made by Taoists in the Han 
    dynasty around 200 B.C. In their additions to the I-Ching they 
    called the active or dynamic force Yang and the passive static 
    force Yin.    

and if you again will consider the issue. If Yang/Yin division is 
mandatory - i.e. it couldn't as well  have been Gung/Ho and still been 
Taoism - then DQ/SQ is mandatory, MOQ's DQ is the dynamic part 
part of existence. Get it? 

[Krimel]
First of all I think DQ and SQ correspond exactly to Yang and Yin.  The
point you seem to miss is that dividing the world is not mandatory. It is
just useful. Making distinctions and creating concepts is what sets us apart
from other animals but how we do it is entirely up to us.

[Bo]
I accept every word, but you said that DQ/SQ corresponds to the 
Yang/Yin and I agree. There can't be any Tao without the Yang/Yin 
arrangement and no Quality without the DQ/SQ. If the mere act of 
saying so is the sin, how do you avoid language? 

[Krimel]
You have this backwards the Tao is the Tao regardless of how we elect to
describe it. As I said, Lao Tsu does not use the terms. What he says is
this:

Even the finest teaching is not the Tao itself. 
Even the finest name is insufficient to define it. 
Without words, the Tao can be experienced,
and without a name, it can be known.

You can avoid language by not speaking but if you want to communicate you
have to have concepts. You have to divide continuous experience into
discrete units. How we choose to do that is what we are talking about here.
This is where Pirsig is wielding his analytical knife to reslice Lao Tsu's
pie. The task of metaphysics is to decide on the most fundamental units of
this division. One way to do this would be mind/matter another
static/dynamic. You could pick good/evil or natural/supernatural. Many
ancient people chose earth, air, fire and water; or the three states of
matter and the power that transforms them.

[Bo]
But for Goodness' sake the MOQ "argues" that DQ is and will remain 
undefined. Again muster your resources and try to come to grips with 
this issue.

[Krimel]
Quality is undefined. 

DQ and SQ are concepts we use to talk about it. They are definitions and
they are both definable and specifiable. In fact the biggest problem I have
with the AWGIs is their insistence that DQ is "betterness". DQ, change, can
be disastrous. In fact disaster is a form of DQ. Even the Jews got this
point. In Isaiah it is written: "I form the light, and create darkness: I
make peace, and create evil, saith the Lord.