[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Krimel]

[dmb said to Dan]
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.

[Krimel]
There is a critical point here. I never understood Pirsig to be saying he
was wielding analytical knife intent on creating a dualism. But when you
throw Quality out of the MoQ, which is what you seem to be advocating,
that's what you are left with.

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?

[Krimel]
As long as 'it' is Quality and SQ and DQ are concepts for describing 'it'
there is no problem. The split that results from Pirsig's 2005 agreement
with Turner breaks the MoQ into a dualism which is Quality (DQ) and
not-Quality (SQ).

dmb says:
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. 

[Krimel]
Taoism is in no sense a dualism. Tao cannot be named. But we name it anyway
in terms of oppositional relationships.