[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[skutvik at online.no]

Gentelmen

On 16 Dec 2005 at 19:46, Paul Turner wrote to Dan who had said :

> >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.

Bo says:
I don't know in what message you "brought up Romantic Quality" 
and to what purpose, but RQ wasn't abandoned alone, only as 
part of the Romantic/Classic aggregate and why would it be futile 
to unite ZMM and LILA? They are is seamlessly united by the 
SOL interpretation. Romantic=social and Classic=intellectual. It's 
even depicted in the diagram on page 243 that classic quality is 
"intellectual" and also that it splits into subjects and objects.      

Paul to Dan:
> 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. 

Bo says:
I agree, ZMM and LILA must be united or else it's something 
wrong with the MOQ. About the later work taking precedence - 
yes, but I have found no inconsistencies if the SOL is applied 
except for translation. The big picture is as following: Phaedrus 
identifies Quality as reality and that SOM is its antipode, Pirsig 
later goes on to create a metaphysics where Quality (which, as 
Dan says, contains all dynamic and static potentials) divides into 
Romantic Quality and Classic Quality.

Here a reminder is due: In block diagrams the thing that is split 
does not remain behind, the top box is gone after the splitting is 
done, or it turns into a double box. The illusion of something 
staying undivided behind is due to the nature of diagrams.

Thus the Romantic half is what is dynamic and Classic what is 
not, this seeps through from what is said about the two. The first 
is hip, cool, groovy "...the ones who have the easiest time seeing 
quality are small children",  while the second is square "...he felt 
that intellectuals usually have the greatest trouble seeing quality" 
(p.241) and in perfect tune with this the classic half turns out to 
be SOM! 

I can't see it otherwise than this is valid. That of Romantic 
corresponding to the social reality and Classic to intellectual is 
just as patent. Firstly it is is seen from the diagram, but also the 
Quality=Aretê equation points to it. I wonder what collective 
blindness hinders you all from seeing these simple facts and 
compels you instead to make up complicated "theses"?           

Bo