[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: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:46:54 -0000
>
>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]

Hi Paul

Wow that was a quick reply! Yes you offered these quotes before and thank 
you for reminding me. Again, I would suspect that the audience Robert Pirsig 
was addressing had something to do with the way he put things to them, but 
regardless, I notice the qualifier "primarily" is used. Not to pick nits, 
but if RMP was referring primarily to Dynamic Quality, when he used the term 
Quality in ZMM, I suppose he must have also been referring to static quality 
as well, secondarily. It makes me wonder why he didn't just write LILA 
instead of ZMM but then I'm the fool who needs to be constantly reminded of 
what someone else has already said.

>
> >>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]

In your hurry it appears (to me) that you've made a mistake in interpreting 
what I wrote. Please read my post again and show me where I said value is a 
thing. I fail to see it. Moreover, I paraphrased a quote from LILA which I 
include in its entirety below. I don't believe I'm the blithering idiot 
you're attempting to make me out to be. Somehow I expected more from you.

"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value are divided into 
four systems: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns and 
intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive. That's all there are. If you 
construct an encyclopedia of four topics-Inorganic, Biological, Social and 
Intellectual-nothing is left out. No "thing," that is. Only Dynamic Quality, 
which cannot be described in any encyclopedia, is absent." (LILA p149)

>
> >>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.

It seems we're both frustrated.

>
> >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.

Good luck.

Dan