[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[david buchanan]

dmb said to Dan:
This [deleted] quote from chapter 9 of Lila explains, I think, that any number of dualism can be produced by using the analytic knife. That's what I mean by "pairs of opposites". Any intellectual distinction will produce paired terms that define each other, the way "up" means "not down" or "cold" means "not hot".

Dan replied:
I think this is the source of my discomfort: pairs of opposites define each other. So if we take Dynamic and static as pairs of opposites, we can define each by the other, right? And Dynamic Quality defined is static quality. But static quality defined is not Dynamic Quality.


dmb says:

Yes, there is always a paradox lurking in this particular dualism. But it's not really that much of a trick. DQ is just paradoxically defined as undefinable. The DQ/sq dualism is basically a distinction between definable and undefinable, between concepts and the primary empirical reality, between verbal descriptions and pre-verbal experience. 



Dan:


So you're saying Dynamic Quality and static quality are intellectual distinctions, divided pairs of opposites in a metaphysical system, contrasted with undivided Quality. That sounds right.  But doesn't Robert Pirsig say that Dynamic Quality in LILA refers to the Quality of ZMM? I thought I read that somewhere. If so, how can Dynamic Quality and static quality be contrasted with itself (undivided quality)?

dmb says:

The distinctions between different kinds of quality are all intellectual of course, not just the difference between static and dynamic but also the various kinds of static quality and the varieties within each kind. We can talk about Quality as a whole, which makes the MOQ a monism, the DQ/sq split makes it a dualism and when we add talk about the levels the MOQ is a form of pluralism.

The switch from Quality in ZAMM to DQ in Lila, however, is more a result of giving up the the classic-romantic split. Pirsig realized later, I think, that those two labels designate different thought styles but they are still both intellectual. DQ is defined as pre-intellectual, regardless of of any particular intellectual style.



Dan:
Looking at 'it' as a term synonomous with experience, Dynamic Quality is both undefined and infinitely defined. The question is: where does the Dynamic/static distinction belong? I would say, since Dynamic Quality is pre-intellellectual in nature, the distinction belongs at the moment of intellectualization. How does that count as a pair of opposites, though?

dmb says:

Yes, I think that's exactly right. In terms of where the difference shows up in experience, the distinction belongs at the moment of intellectualization. Not that we notice this moment or that we are consciously aware of the pre-intellectual experience that precedes it. These two factors interact back and forth constantly. But the original statement about DQ and sq counting as a pair of opposites referred to the action of Pirsig's analytic knife, to the structure of the MOQ as compared with Yin-Yang dualism of Taoism. I mean, DQ/sq counts as a dualism within an intellectual framework wherein definitions are required. Granted, DQ is paradoxically defined as undefinable and as not a metaphysical chess piece. But it's like the man said, you can't have a metaphysics that consists of just one word. And you need a catechism to throw at guys like Dick Rigel.

 
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with Hotmail. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5