[MD] What is the MOQ?

[Krimel]

[Bo]
I don't see any problem with Quality being DQ, it removes the 
platypus of a Quality outside the MOQ something that 
perpetuates the somish (Kantian) problem of an ineffable reality 
that we make up theories about, only now the said reality is called 
Quality. 

[Krimel]
There is no platypus here. This is what the MoQ says. There is an undefined
reality that we make up stories about.

[Bo]
The DQ/SQ configuration is the primary axiom , your enigma: ".... 
how can DQ and Quality be the same thing?..." stems from the 
infamous box diagrams that makes the divided entity remain 
unscathed behind, it may work for motorcycles, but not for reality. 

[Krimel]
Maybe the box diagrams are not as famous as you think. I have no clue what
you are talking about here. DQ/SQ is a split that divides Quality. Quality
can be recognized as forms in stasis or forms in flux. It's pretty simple.

[Bo]
Your next quandary:  "What is Quality in LILA if the Quality of 
ZMM is the DQ of LILA?" The Quality of ZAMM gave rise to 
subjects and objects (SOM) that became the "Classic" (subtitled 
"intellect") part of that moq (no "classic" levels. So you see had 
this "intellect" been carried over into the final MOQ all would 
have been fine, ZMM and LILA would have been harmonized, as 
it is the are worlds apart.   

[Krimel]
The Quality in ZMM is the Tao. The Quality in Lila is the Tao. The Tao is a
metaphysical principle that recognizes and reconciles opposites. It is a
monism that defuses dualisms. DQ/SQ and S/O are both dualisms that can be
resolved by the Tao. All Pirsig is saying is that DQ/SQ is a more
fundamental dualism than S/O. Lao Tsu does not mention Yin and Yang but they
arose early on as the fundamental set of opposites. They are they active and
passive principles.

Just as Quality is a mediocre term for Tao. DQ and SQ are mediocre terms for
Yin and Yang. They highlight certain aspects, which is good but because they
are poorly understood other important aspects are neglected. Mostly this is
the result of our pathological need to define things and to latch onto the
illusion of definition.

[Bo] 
I also had a hunch that Pirsig had said so - something I credited 
him for - but it's not in the Paul Turner letter I constantly refer to, 
could you be more specific and provide the actual quote?   

[Krimel]
The quote offered by Paul is:

"When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and 
static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic 
Quality. Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and 
static quality." [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005] 

This was part of a fairly detailed post on the subject between Paul and Dan:
http://www.moqtalk.org/archivedata/moq_discuss/2002%20-%202005/18485.html

[Bo]
I don't quite get your point, the fact that reality's (=Quality's) 
dynamic component is part of the MOQ can't by no twist of logic 
be a "definition" and thus an desecration.  I used the example of 
religions that postulate a God/World split, but God is still as 
sacred. Yet, it struck me just now, this may have wider 
ramifications. The pious thinks that God is from before "religion", 
is it the same piety that surfaces as a demand about a Quality 
from before the MOQ?

[Krimel]
See you can't resist putting an equal sign on one side or the other of
Quality. When you do that you miss the point. DQ on the other hand is a
descriptor of Quality. Change, flux, activity and the dynamic are some of
the fundamental characteristic of Quality that we perceive. DQ can be
identified, specified and quantified rather like forces in physics.    

I don't know what religion you are talking about but in the west the
God/World split goes something like this. God creates the world. He is
eminent in the world that is he is infused into the world but he is
transcendent in that he is beyond the world. Sacred has nothing to do with
this. A rock can be sacred. But Quality or the Tao is not God and it is not
the world.