[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Paul Turner" <paul at turnerbc.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>Subject: Re: [MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ
>Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 09:44:19 -0000
>
>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."

Hi Paul

To better illustrate my point, please allow me to quote from Robert Pirsig's 
Copleston annotations on Anthony McWatt's website:

"A singular difference is that the MOQ says the Absolute is of value, a 
point Bradley may have thought so obvious it didn't need mentioning. The MOQ 
says that this value is not a property of the Absolute, it is the Absolute 
itself, and is a much better name for the Absolute than "Absolute."  
Rhetorically, the word "absolute" conveys nothing except rigidity and 
permanence and authoritarianism and remoteness.  "Quality," on the other 
hand conveys flexibility, impermanence, here-and-now-ness and freedom.  And 
it is a word everyone knows and loves and understands—even butcher shops 
that take pride in their product.   Beyond that the term, “value,” paves the 
way for an explanation of evolution that did not occur to Bradley.  He 
apparently avoided discussing the world of appearances except to emphasize 
the need to transcend it.  The MOQ returns to this world of appearances and 
shows how to understand these appearances in a more constructive way."

Note the phrase: "...it is a word everyone knows and loves and 
understands..." Yes we all know what Quality means. I think there is a 
distinct possibility that you're making this out to be more difficult that 
it need be. But then again ... I could be confused ...

>
>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.

Quality can be used in a number of ways, sure; dictionary.com gives 7 
definitions that we all know. Dynamic Quality is another matter though. I'm 
sorry I wasn't more clear on that. I don't think that we need to qualify 
Quality. On the other hand, I think that we do need to qualify Dynamic 
Quality.

>
> >>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.

I agree that in LILA, Dynamic Quality is identified with mysticism. And 
also, according to LILA, a mystic would deny that reality can be described 
metaphysically. I trust that you already know the passage I refer to so I 
won't waste your time quoting it here.

Thank you for reading,

Dan