[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, 12 Dec 2005 12:58:42 -0000
>
>
>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. :-)

Hi Paul

Thank you for your reply. Well, hopefully your local butcher knows Quality 
when he sees it which is Mr. Pirsig's point and mine by offering the quote. 
Quality is used as an everyday term, not as a special jargonized term unique 
to the MOQ. I see too that you've level shifted from the general to the 
specific though I'm sure you know that already what with the smiley face and 
all.

>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?

I agree with Robert Pirsig on this.


>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.

Asked and answered.

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

Okay, I'll bite... The way I understand it, the MOQ states that Quality 
equals value and in fact early in LILA Robert Pirsig uses the term 
"Metaphysics of Value" to describe the MOQ. It's stated in LILA that if we 
were to construct an encyclopedia of reality, we could assign a static 
quality value to everything -- nothing would be left out. No "thing" that 
is! Dynamic Quality is not a thing. So to answer your query, value is 
synonymous with Quality. Dynamic Quality is "not this, not that."

>
> >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.

Oh no. That is just what I've been doing all along and I don't know what 
else to say other than a person gets it or they don't.

>
> >> >>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?

Here you go level shifting again. What I was hoping by my bringing up 
Romantic Quality (I did already know why Romantic Quality was abandoned but 
thank you for answering)  is that you would come to see the futility of 
uniting ZMM and LILA into one coherent thesis. I believe if you consider the 
matter carefully you'll see what I mean.

>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."

I know he calls it an objection but it's more of a condition (in my 
opinion). There's no getting around a condition. Hence the answer doesn't 
change anything. And you're right; by virtue of us being here we've decided 
to go along and do it anyway.

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

Yes. This seems clear to me too.

Thank you for reading,

Dan