[MD] Quality/Tao

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>> Thirty spokes meet at a nave;
>> Because of the hole we may use the wheel.
>> Clay is moulded into a vessel;
>> Because of the hollow we may use the cup.
>> Walls are built around a hearth;
>> Because of the doors we may use the house.
>> Thus tools come from what exists,
>> But use from what does not.
>>
>> [http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/ttcmerel.html]
>>
>> Krimel:
>> Quality = Tao = Undefined
>> DQ = Active
>> SQ = Static
>>
>> Dan:
>> The tao is called the way but it isn't a place or a destination. The
>> tao is experience. It is constantly defined yet inexhaustible. All
>> that is, was, and will be springs forth from it and trickles back to
>> it. Dynamic Quality is synonymous with the tao. It is not active yet
>> it never rests. It is not static yet it may be defined by that very
>> nature. Dynamic Quality is not this, not that.
>
> [Krimel]
> Pirsig says Quality is synonymous with Tao.
> You are saying that a particular kind of Quality is synonymous with Tao.
> Tao has no need of adjectives or modifiers.

Dan:
That is not my intent but yours. I see you taking Dynamic Quality and
relegating it to static quality status. But I am not saying Dynamic
Quality is a modified type of Quality. Simply, for intellectual rigor,
it seems best not to compare the Dynamic Quality of LILA with the
Quality of ZMM although the terms both point towards the same.

For instance, if we say Quality is a combination of Dynamic Quality
and static quality, we end up with a triad, something like your
diagram above. And if we say Quality and Dynamic Quality are the same,
then, indeed, why do we have to use a modifier for Dynamic Quality
when just Quality will do?

I like Robert Pirsig's answer in the Paul Turner letter, btw. Thanks
for pointing that out. I'd forgotten where I'd read it. I recall
having had similiar discussions with Paul years ago that left me
feeling a bit frustrated (I sensed some frustration on Paul's part
too) over my inability to reconcile our differences. But that's
nothing new here, is it?

>
>> [Dan]
>> Dynamic Quality equals Tao equals Undefined/Infinitely Defined equals
>> not this, not that.
>>
>> Static quality equals reality.
>>
>> We know Quality when we see it.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> [Krimel]
> Why do you return to "Quality" in the second to the last line here, if the
> term is to be replaced with Dynamic Quality?

Dan:
Quality is the central term in the Metaphysics of Quality. Whenever I
start to drift, I find it best to come back to center. I'm not saying
it NEEDS to be replaced but again, it seems best for intellectual
rigor. My thoughts on this seem to continually evolve, however.

Thank you,

Dan