[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ham

11 June you said:

> 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". 

I'm not against comparing the DQ/SQ with the God/World dualism,
particularly the Spinoza kind where the World are  aspects of God, this 
compares well with SQ being aspects of Quality.  It's just the levels 
and their relationship that gives the MOQ such an enormous 
explanatory power and leaves everything in the dust.   

> The only way we can know it is empirically, parsed into levels and
> patterned into objects and events. 

Existence is the static range and it is not "parsed" into objects and 
events, this parsing is static intellectual value FYI.

> 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 know that the static range is NOT dynamic - that goes without saying 
- but it is quality nevertheless (for a moment suspend your system and 
apply your intelligence as if you you were a moqist)   

> I don't think Pirsig ever really wanted to ponder the metaphysical
> truth of a primary source.  

IMO Pirsig wanted it too badly and got obsessed with the Quality = 
Reality" issue, while metaphysics usually opens with an axiom, saying 
let's see what such an assumption leads to . And MOQ's assumption 
is that there is a dynamic flux of value that has developed static levels, 
while  Pirsig makes the MOQ the "static" part of a still greater 
"Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics and thereby "kills" it IMO. It's this I 
ask you to apply your phenomenal intelligence on. I know you don't 
buy the MOQ but this has normal logical implications. 

> 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.
 
My mission is NOT re-interpreting but to reinstate ZAMM's "proto-
moq", but enough said, please concentrate on the above issue. 

Bodvar