[MD] MD Two Theses in the MOQ

[Paul Turner]

Dan,

Dan prev:
>> >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.

Paul:  Your implicit argument was:  Value cannot be synonymous with Dynamic
Quality because Dynamic Quality is not a thing.  From this I concluded that
you think that value must be a thing which is what prevents it from being
synonymous with Dynamic Quality.  Pirsig clearly identifies Dynamic Quality
with value.

>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.

Paul:  There's no intent on my part to make you out to be a blithering
idiot.  Maybe a longer response would have been better but I was short on
time.  The longer response to you is that, after spending a couple of years
trawling through material by Pirsig, including personal correspondence, some
of it very specific to the matter in hand, I present my understanding of the
relationship of (ZMM's) Quality to (LILA's) Dynamic Quality, which you tell
me is wrong.  Respecting your opinion, I ask where I've gone wrong, to which
I'm rather dismissively told, "I agree with Robert Pirsig," and, "You just
don't get it."  

Talk about begging the question!  

Nevertheless, I may have misunderstood Pirsig but then it seems reasonable
that it would be incumbent on you to tell me 

a)  what Robert Pirsig thinks about the matter that you "agree with."

b)  provide the textual support for what you consider to be Pirsig's
thoughts on this.

But what do I get?  Nada.

Regards

Paul