[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[Ham Priday]

Hey, Bo --


> 10 June you butted into my debate with the Krimel
> (most welcome) but please do not carry it into the
> wilderness so i cut it down to my obsessive issue.

Well, you have just deflated most of my enthusiasm regarding your 
willingness to discuss metaphysical fundamentals ;-[.

[Bodvar before]:
>> Well what did Lao Tsu mean by TAO if not the source
>> from which everything emanates or are "carvings" out of?

[Ham]:
>> That's music to my ears, coming from you, Bo.  I'm
>> especially in tune with "the source from which everything
>> emanates."  It's decidedly Platonistic.

[Bodvar]:
> Nonsense dear Ham. Plato's message was that IDEAS
> are the TRUE (what became objective) part (of the Truth/
> Appearance dualism that Greek Thought had arrived at
> with Socrates) while SENSES represented mere
> Appearances.  Nothing faintly similar to Ideas being
> dynamic and Senses being static.
>
> Now then if you too will concentrate. We agree on a
> Dynamic source from which everything emanates.

Frankly, I'm not keen on the Static/Dynamic paradigm, nor do I believe that 
"dynamics" have any relevance to the primary source.  The dichotomy of 
Essentialism is between Absolute and Relational.  This translates 
ontologically to Essence/Existence, and epistemologically to 
Sensibility/Beingness.  I also believe Absolute suggests "uncreated" and 
"immutable" (i.e., static?), whereas Relational suggests "temporal", 
"differentiated", and "changing" (i.e., dynamic?).  That effectively 
reverses your static/dynamic paradigm.  So, if you expect me to follow your 
conception, my contributions will overlook those terms.

> Lao Tsu calls it TAO and you may call it ESSENCE,
> but as the MOQ is the focus here let's concentrate on
> QUALITY. The MOQ postulates that static levels have
> formed from/in this dynamic Quality. So the enigma is
> why Pirsig went and said that the MOQ is just the static
> part of a still greater QUALITY/MOQ meta-metaphysics.
> [SNIP]

> This is outrageous: The MOQ postulates a DQ as dynamic as
> dynamic comes, why a still greater DQ???? After having
> written this (Summary) and committed this super-metaphysics
> to "words" one would think a still more dynamic variety were
> required ... OK, I keep repeating myself.

Judging from your Pirsig quote, I'm guessing it was his 'caveat' to the 
reader that any analysis of Quality--such as time/space creation--will 
necessarily be an empirical ("static") exposition, and not that ultimate 
reality or DQ itself is static.

Look, Bo.  Deists call their God a "Supreme Being" without the slightest 
knowledge of what "supreme" means in the context of beingness.  Pirsig is 
doing the same thing with "Quality".  The only way we can know it is 
empirically, parsed into levels and patterned into objects and events. 
Obviously, this differentiated perspective isn't what Quality is in the 
absolute sense.  (Of course, I don't happen to believe in "Absolute 
Quality", my understanding of quality being that it's the human assessment 
of experience--a relative psycho-emotional "pattern").

I don't think Pirsig ever really wanted to ponder the metaphysical truth of 
a primary source.  His books demonstrate a greater interest in anthropology 
and the development of social cultures.  Absolute Quality or Essence was 
meaningless to him.  His legacy as a philosopher/novelist would have 
received more acclaim had he made no mention of metaphysics at all and 
titled his thesis simply "The World of Quality".

That's only my opinion, of course.  As for engaging in discussions aimed at 
"re-interpreting the MOQ", my own valuistic philosophy is so far off 
Pirsig's chart on the fundamentals I'm afraid I can't be of much help. 
However, if it's alright with you, I'll continue to chime in once in awhile 
when I feel the need to emphasize a point or when my instincts tell me 
someone is talking nonsense.

Thanks for the invitation, though, Bo.

Essentially yours,
Ham