[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: skutvik at online.no
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moq.org
>To: moq_discuss at moq.org
>Subject: RE: MD Two Theses in the MOQ
>Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:50:52 +0100
>
>Hi Dan
>
>Thanks for mentioning me "in dispatches".

Hi Bo

It's very good to hear from you! You're most welcome.

>
>29 Nov you wrote to Paul
>
>Paul:
> > >"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." 	[Pirsig to Turner, November 2005]
>
>Dan:
> > Thank you for sharing the quote. The first sentence seems to confirm
> > what you're saying, yes. But I see a problem with the second sentence
> > if a person were to insist on using it in the same context. If Quality
> > covers both Dynamic Quality and static quality, then how can Quality
> > and Dynamic Quality be the same? Can something be part of itself?
>
>Pirsig's (via Paul) clearing up of Quality's divisions is much
>welcome by me because it eliminates the argument that there's a
>DQ outside of the MOQ.

I'm sorry but I don't understand your argument. How can Dynamic Quality be 
outside of the Metaphysics of Quality? How can "it" be inside the MOQ? "It" 
is what the MOQ is written on.

>
>..... except in the sense than its "empty framework" remains at
>the intellectual level, while the content creates the Quality Reality
>from where these contexts are seen.
>
>I wonder why you see a Quality prior to the DQ/SQ so important.

I don't know if I'd put it quite like that. "Prior" is a static quality 
concept that (I would say) doesn't pertain to Dynamic Quality. Rather I 
think it important to note that there are subtle differences between the 
Quality of ZMM and Dynamic Quality of LILA. For instance, the Zuni brujo 
story seems to indicate that we cannot tell the Dynamic Quality individuals 
from the degenerates until well after the fact. Yet ZMM seems to indicate 
that it's easy to tell what has Quality and what doesn't -- the work the 
fellow does who welds the worn out chain guard, for example. Remember how 
Robert Pirsig takes the man unawares by complimenting him on his work?

>When water feezes it is water all the same so the liquid/solid
>state is a good example of the DQ/SQ dichotomy ... IMO.

Yes an excellent example! Still, you're using static quality examples again 
to illustrate Dynamic Quality, a mistake in my opinion, and too easy to do.

Thank you for writing,

Dan