[MD] Reading & Incomprehension

[John Carl]

Dear Bo,

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:59 PM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:

> Dear John
> 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
>
>
Well I don't see it that way.  Start with static levels formed in DQ.  I'd
say Static levels formed BY DQ.  Once the leading edge of the train has
passed, you can see it's tracks.

All reality is SQ.  DQ is the force creative of SQ.


The MoQ is not really a static pattern - it is an evolving and
intellectually dynamic pattern.  But it's composed of different static
patterns viewed in snapshots of time.  Thus it's both shifting and composed
of stable parts.  Static and Dynamic.  Like us all.

It's a bit more dynamic, I'd say, than any other metaphysical formulation I
can imagine, simply because it addresses as it's root concern the morality
of being open to Dynamic Change.




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

Could be... It sure sounds like one!




> > 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.
>
>

Well I don't agree at all with those who say that the words are the problem.
 Words are the solution, not the problem!

And I don't see why DQ should have its own DQ... except in the meta-language
way in which we talk about our conceptualizations of DQ, as if those
conceptualizations were DQ. But that's doing the meta-meta thing that bugs
you, it seems, so I'd rather keep it simple.

All conceptualizations are SQ.

All Reality is SQ.

DQ is that which generates SQ or Reality.


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


Hey!  Did I figure it out yet?

John