[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Dear John 

10 June.:

Bo before:
> > OK, "it" or "reality" is ever-changing, dynamic, ... plus all
> > expressions of "ineffability" known. Lao Tsu called it Tao and
> > Pirsig called it Quality and my point is that it is the source of
> > everything we know, NOT that there is a still fluxier FLUX that
> > gives rise to the Fux/Everything dualism! I know you have great
> > geneal knowledge, but can't we philosophize a little for
> > ourselves? You will understand that it is the Quality/MOQ
> > meta-metaphysics that irks me because it nullifies the MOQ.

 John:
> Now most of that makes sense to me.  I just don't see how you see
> any fluxier flux in the thinking of others. (appreciated the
> freudian misspelling "FUX/Everything" tho)

Well, it's the QUALITY/MOQ issue. Pirsig creates a great new reality
(yes I mean it) which states that there is the DQ in which static
levels have formed. OK, does not this suffice? Why postulate a still
more dynamic dynamism of which the MOQ is a "static" pattern? t 

Why did not my spell check catch the "fux"? Is that a word? 

> Although, to be sure, I have had a recently concieved notion of my
> own, that your particular problem is predicated upon the fact that
> all definitions of DQ are static, and thus wrong.  But I figured
> that's just a kindergarten formulation and you're probably way past
> that.  So it must be something else bothering you.

Kindergarten has open day ;-)  The "QUALITY/MOQ" meta-
metaphysics is an uncalled for Gordic Knot tied by Pirsig. You say: "

    All definitions of DQ are static, and thus wrong." 

And I agree, but the MOQ does NOT define DQ apart from calling it 
DQ, so why must there be a greater DQ outside the DQ/SQ? If the 
great sin is the words, then the new super-Quality also requires 
another, and another .... ad infinitum.     

> If only I could figure it out, my life would be complete.

Agree.

Bodvar