[MD] What is the MOQ?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Heather Perella <spiritualadirondack at yahoo.com>:

> 
> 
> Platt:
> > In the interests of being fair and balanced, this
> > from the great author himself:
> > BAGGINI: Although the metaphysics of quality is
> > important in “Zen and the Art of
> > Motorcycle Maintenance”, it seems to me that perhaps
> > more important is a certain
> > attitude to existence which it advocates. Is it
> > possible to separate the metaphysics
> > from this attitude and if so, which is more
> > important to you?
> > 
> > PIRSIG: Yes, the Metaphysics of Quality itself is
> > static and should be separated from
> > the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of
> > the printed philosophic
> > tradition it doesn't change from day to day,
> > although the world it talks about does.
> > To use an Oriental metaphor, it is just another
> > finger pointing toward the moon.
> > 
> > --- From an interview with Baggini
> > 
> > Perhaps my "weltenschauung" notion was not such a
> > hot idea after all. Also
> > Pirsig's answer implies the MOQ is a static
> > intellectual pattern. That you disagree
> > with Pirsig about this is noted. 
> 
> 
> SA:  Pirsig isn't stating that the moq is ONLY a
> static intellectual patterns.  Pirsig is stating that
> the moq is a static pattern.  By this he's referring
> to what metaphysics is traditionally patterned as,
> which is a metaphysics is a definition of reality. 
> Pirsig is pointing out that any definition of reality
> is a static pattern (thus all four levels).  Notice
> Pirsig points out that this definitional aspect, key
> concept here is 'defining/definition (choose your
> grammatical inclusion of define)', thus, this
> definitional aspect of what a metaphysics does would
> not be able to keep up with the changing "world",
> unless, a metaphysics includes a mechanism that can
> allow the metaphysics to change and keep up with a
> changing world.  The mechanism for the moq to keep up
> with a world that changes is - dynamic quality, as
> Pirsig points out above, "Yes, the Metaphysics of
> Quality itself is static and should be separated from
> the Dynamic Quality it talks about."
>      What Pirsig is saying, is, keep definition
> separated from nondefinition, in other words, keep
> traditional, defining metaphysics separated from world
> that changes (dynamic quality), in other words, keep
> static separated from dynamic.  That's all Pirsig is
> pointing out here.  Here's talking about the first
> split of quality here.

SA:

Wow. That's a lot of interpretation for a fairly simple declarative 
sentence.

Platt



-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/