[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Paul Turner]

Dan,

>>Paul:  This highlights the equivocation I'm trying to avoid.  In ZMM,
>>Quality = Dynamic Quality.  In LILA, Quality = Dynamic Quality + static
>>quality.  So when someone just says "Quality" what do they mean?
>
>Hi Paul
>
>Do you really need anyone to tell you what Quality means?

Paul:  You seem to be confusing "not knowing the meanings of a word" with
"not knowing which meaning of a word someone is using."

Paul prev:>>In your question above, the first time you use Quality you are
using it in
>>a
>>way that is only true in the LILA sense, and the second time you use it in
>>a
>>way that is only true in the ZMM sense, hence the confusion.
>
>Well, yes. That's why I wrote what I wrote, to clarify that issue. Glad we
>can agree.

Paul:  Good, so you agree that Quality can be used in at least two ways and
thus needs to be qualified to avoid equivocation, which is my point.

>>Paul:  Because he realised that "Romantic Quality" doesn't work for
>>mysticism and so the division was abandoned.
>
>Yes and we should remember that metaphysics itself doesn't work for
>mysticism.

Paul:  Although Pirsig explicitly identifies Dynamic Quality with mysticism
and cites this as one of the benefits of his metaphysics.

Regards

Paul