[MD] Quality/Tao

[Krimel]

>> 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. 

[Krimel]
Then what does the word "dynamic" add? 
If Quality is unmodified by it, I say we drop it.

[Dan]
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?

[Krimel]
I think both Taoism and the MoQ are safely and namelessly monistic. 
But as soon as you name something, you imply its opposite.

When beauty is abstracted
Then ugliness has been implied;
When good is abstracted
Then evil has been implied.

http://www.vl-site.org/taoism/ttcmerel.html 

I would add:

When DQ is abstracted
Then SQ has been implied;
When SQ is abstracted
Then DQ has been implied.

Does this produce a trinity or is it just the inevitable result of naming
things?

[Dan]
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. 

[Krimel]
Glad to help. I never understood why the intellectual level missive got so
much play and this one has been just ignored.

[Dan]
I recall having had similar 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?

[Krimel]
No, it isn't. But for me, at least, this the most important issue. 

On reading this for about the 20th time I still have issues with it perhaps
you can help.
Here is the whole thing again:

> "When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality 
> and static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant 
> by Dynamic Quality.  Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both 
> Dynamic and static quality.  So far no problems have arisen with this 
> confusion of terms but if they do arise I would guess that they could 
> be eliminated by refraining from using the term Quality alone."
> [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005]

I am puzzled, When he says, "When ZMM was written there was no division
between Dynamic Quality and static quality and the term Quality then meant
what is now meant by Dynamic Quality."

It is not as though he is unfamiliar with the Tao te Ching. He says he read
it many times and made his own copy by hand. He even maps out the dualities
of ZMM like this:

The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality. 
That was what he had said. 
The names that can be given it are not Absolute names. 
It is the origin of heaven and earth. 
When named it is the mother of all things -- .
Quality [romantic Quality] and its manifestations [classic Quality] 
are in their nature the same. 
It is given different names [subjects and objects] 
when it becomes classically manifest. 
Romantic quality and classic quality together 
may be called the ``mystic.'' 
Reaching from mystery into deeper mystery,
it is the gate to the secret of all life. 
Quality is all-pervading.

I think it is pretty well recognized that any duality one chooses, any
division one makes can be inserted this way. That is what Taoism is. Am I
over generalizing? Do you think these verses can or should be treated as
referring to some specific division and not to others?

Or what do you make of this:

"Quality [romantic Quality] and its manifestations [classic Quality] 
are in their nature the same. 
It is given different names [subjects and objects] 
when it becomes classically manifest."

Is the ZMM split between RQ/CQ then CQ is split into S/O. Are we dealing
with a monism, a dualism or a quartette or a party of five?

Does this mean the SOM never applied to the Romantics?

I think I am ok with this part: 
"Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and static
quality."

I could read that as Quality is described through its two aspects. Which is
what I have been insisting. The split in Lila is certainly cleaner than the
spit in ZMM.

I do not agree at all that "So far no problems have arisen..." And I can't
imagine that anyone reading this forum could think that either.

What do you make of eliminating problems by "refraining from using the term
Quality alone." Maybe I am being too literal here. Perhaps this just means
that whenever discussing some aspect of Quality, the modifiers should be
applied for clarity. There is Quality and its two aspects but we should be
specific about which aspects we mean.
 
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.

[Krimel]
I completely agree. Quality IS the central term of the MoQ.

I have been thinking about the Tao filtered through Pirsig and Pirsig
filtered through the Tao for 35 years now. I don't want to sound rigid or
closed minded and I do see them differently at different times; but I don't
think my thoughts on them have changed all that much. I like to think this
is because the metaphysics of the Tao which unpins the MoQ, Zen and even
modern physics really works, it has for me. These ideas have been tested
across time and culture for 2500 years and have not been found lacking. 

I think the point of a metaphysics is to find relationships that apply in
any and all situations. Taoism does this by giving us a way to resolve all
binary oppositions. Is Pirsig really trying to identify THE specific pair of
opposites and all of our arguments are over which spilt is THE split?