[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Paul Turner]

Dan,

Paul prev:>>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?

Dan:
>I agree with Robert Pirsig on this.

Paul:  Likewise, i.e., Quality in ZMM = Dynamic Quality in LILA.

"The Dynamic aspect of Quality is that Quality which I associate most
closely with Zen Buddhism. When I was talking about [Quality] in ZMM I was
referring primarily to Dynamic Quality." [AHP, 1993]

"Dynamic Quality is the only part of Quality described in ZMM. It is the
part of Quality about which everyone agrees." [AHP, 1993]

>>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."

Paul:  Dynamic Quality is not a thing but neither is value.  Things are
static patterns of values.  I would have thought you would know that.  

"Dynamic Quality *is* value and thus is very easily distinguished." [LILA'S
CHILD, p555]

>>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:  Back at ya.

>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.

Paul:  On the contrary, after much careful consideration of the matter over
the last couple of years I think it both possible and desirable to unite ZMM
and LILA into a coherent thesis.  Furthermore I think the general rule of
thumb is that the later work should take precedence over the earlier work
where there are inconsistencies. 

Regards

Paul