[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ (Bo)

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: skutvik at online.no
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ
>Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:23:55 +0100
>
>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.

Hi Bo

Thank you so much for your comments! I think ZMM is the most powerful book 
that I've ever read. It stands alone. LILA is a great book too but it's not 
to be considered a sequel to ZMM in the traditional sense of the word, in my 
opinion. There are several reasons why I think this. First, ZMM seems the 
more autobiographical of the 2 books. Second, ZMM has more heart to it than 
LILA on account of the cold and analytical nature Phaedrus exibits in the 
second book. ZMM is more about caring. LILA is more about analysis. Nothing 
wrong with that necessarily, but the underlying premise of each book makes 
it difficult to blend the 2 together in a coherent thesis unless a person 
were to ignore that level of understanding. The results would then be rather 
shallow, in my opinion.

I find that I don't much cotton to the Romantic Quality=social and Classical 
Quality=intellectual thesis. I would rather see a right brain-left brain 
type of analogy but that has problems too. It is too simplistic in view of 
the recent research on the workings of the human brain. Rather I think the 
Romantic/Classic split in ZMM has more to do with personal preference and 
subjective evaluation, or simply caring, as I said earlier.

>
>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.

I just don't see it. ZMM is not really about zen, or motorcycle maintenance, 
and it's definitely not about the MOQ in any way shape or form. That's LILA! 
That doesn't mean that there's something wrong with the MOQ though. As for 
later work taking precedence over earlier work, tell that about Einstein and 
see how far you get!

>
>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.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

>
>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 think there are problems with this interpretation.

>
>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"?

Well, I didn't make up these "complicated theses" so I assume this is 
addressed to Paul. But it does pertain to your SOL, or at least to the essay 
I put together on it. I've tried reading the essay again and again and all I 
get from the reading is confused, so I've been tardy in sending it to Horse 
for publication on the moq.org website. I keep thinking: maybe if I change 
this or change that but it doesn't seem to work no matter what I do. You 
have a copy Bo. Does it make sense to you? I think it's too complex. So I 
plead guilty as charged.

Thank you for reading,

Dan