[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Paul Turner]

Dan,

>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 understandseven 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:  Making the MOQ out to be more difficult than it need be is the exact
opposite of my intentions.  I guess I should have just asked my local
butcher to explain the relationship of Quality to Dynamic Quality. :-)
Seeing as I appear to have got this all wrong, may I ask you to clear things
up for me - Are you saying that the MOQ states there are three discernible
aspects of reality - Quality, Dynamic Quality and static quality?  In case
you offer an answer along the lines of, "Ultimately there are no discernible
aspects of reality..." I'm asking from the same perspective of conventional,
pragmatic truth that LILA is written from.

Also, is value synonymous with Dynamic Quality or Quality, or both together,
or neither?

>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:  Please elaborate on the difference between Quality and Dynamic
Quality that we need to qualify and how you qualify it.

>> >>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.

Paul:  This reminds me of a discussion I had with David Harding.  I am fully
aware of the "he who speaks does not know" approach to all of this and it is
useful to remind one another of the limits of what we are saying but it's
hardly appropriate for an internet discussion group set up to explore a
philosophy described at length in two novels to approach each other with a
monastic aversion to intellectualisation is it?  I've always assumed that
everyone here had decided to go along with Pirsig's answer to this
objection:  "Go ahead and do it anyway." 

As Pirsig also said, he did nothing for the Tao.  What benefited was reason.

Regards

Paul