[MD] Metaphysical issues: DQ

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

[Chris before]
> but the reason I say that is because if we say DQ is some force or
> something that swoops in and makes stuff happen, we will be at odds
> with science, and we will have become mystics. If we however say that
> DQ is the part of reality that - at any given moment at any given place
> - hasn't been incorporated into SQ understanding - why then we aren't
> at odds with anything.


[Bodvar]
I agree with Christoffer and I will use "life" as an example (because
Pirsig speaks at length here) science (as intellect) is conflict with
religion (as social) over how life (the bio. level) came to be (Darwinism
vs Creationism) Pirsig says that the MOQ resolves this conflict How?
By doing what I say above of reducing science to an intellectual
pattern and religion to a social pattern. Their respective claims that life
must be the result of either chance or divine interference are both
wrong for the very reason of being static level thinking.

[.]

Agree about Krimel, but forget about mysticism, the MOQ does the
trick by its Dynamic/Static split and making the former S/O its own
highest - yet static - level. Regarding the dynamic/static relationship it's
like the ocean/wave one. The waves are water too, but it's the
undulation vs smoothness that matters.


[Chris]
Much agreed.