[MD] the MOQ and its environment

[MarshaV]

Greetings Bo,

At 02:27 PM 2/16/2007, Bo wrote:
>Marsha
>
>15 Feb. you said to (I call her Heather)
>
>Who had quoted Lila (Ch. 5):
>
> > >Quality is indivisible, undefinable and
> > >unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a
> > >known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things.
> > >A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and
> > >knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a
> > >metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical
> > >definition and since Quality is essentially outside
> > >definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality'
> > >is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical
> > >absurdity."
>
>And you said:
>
> > Don't you think that is perfect?
>
>I'm not able to decipher if this is sarcasm or agreement.  Anyway
>to use Phaedrus against Pirsig (ZMM page 30)

I meant perfect in a wondrous way.


>     So I go on. ``For example, it seems completely natural to
>     presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation
>     existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think
>     that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity.''
>     [.....]  It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every
>     test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single
>     attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't
>     have.
>
>Here the point is that Gravity came to be with Newton, meaning
>that the phenomenon of things falling to the ground has always
>existed, but that Newtons explanation of it came with Newton. A
>valid point, but above Pirsig makes it sound as if Quality is
>something outside the Quality metaphysics and that goes against
>the said reasoning. Of course, Quality is the DQ of the MOQ*
>something that makes it the meta-level that contains itself.
>
>To harp some more on it: In Newton's Physics, Gravity has
>always existed and inside the MOQ Quality has always existed,
>but Pirsig disparages metaphysics after first having (correctly)
>stated that nobody can exist outside one.
>
>*) Somewhere Pirsig (post-LILA) says so, but the
>misunderstanding of a QUALITY outside the DQ/SQ persists.


It seems to me that both "falling to the ground" and Newton's 
explanation are descriptions.  The MOQ is also a description. Both DQ 
and sq within the MOQ are descriptions.  But the Quality that is 
described in the MOQ represents an experience, a value experience, 
not another description.

Are you wanting to put into the MOQ the sages/buddhas level?  Those 
who have fully realized the view from above all levels?

m