[MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy.

[Krimel]

Krimel to Andre:
The disservice I am referring to specifically is the claim that the Quality
of ZMM is called DQ in Lila. There are two ways to understand this. The
first and the one I think Pirsig and dmb use, is that DQ IS Quality. As a
result there is no Quality in the Metaphysics of Quality only DQ and SQ.
Aside from being awkward; it turns the MoQ into a form of dualism which I
believe Pirsig would specifically like to reject.

Andre:
I am still not quite sure what the problem is Krimel ( I'm a bit thick
sometimes). You say 'there is no Quality in the Metaphysics of Quality only
DQ and SQ'. But... this is the first slice Pirsig made!! Quality sliced into
DQ/SQ!

[Krimel]
It took a while to find but here the source of the problem as I see it.
http://www.moqtalk.org/archivedata/moq_discuss/2002%20-%202005/18235.html 

------------------------------------------------------
[Paul Turner]
I suggest that the view that 'Quality' remains something above and beyond 
static and Dynamic Quality within the MOQ structure is incorrect. I think 
the confusion arises from the transition between the two books. In ZMM 
there is no reference to 'Dynamic Quality', being that 'static quality' is 
not referred to in any clear way. As I see it, at a certain point in LILA 
the single term 'Quality' is effectively replaced(*) with the two terms - 
'static quality' and 'Dynamic Quality'. 

I have asked Pirsig about all of this recently, he replied as follows: 

"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. So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of terms 
but if they do arise I would guess that they could be eliminated by 
refraining from using the term Quality alone." [Pirsig to Turner, November 
2005] 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-

I was horrified when I read this and have remained outraged every since.

As I said then, this is nothing short of a suggest with offhand approval
from Pirsig to remove Quality from the MoQ.

[Andre]
He [Pirsig] thought that Quality [of ZMM] was better divided into the
Dynamic and the static-[of Lila] 'primarily because the aesthetic, mystic
and scientific aspects of reality can be taken account of by this dichotomy
and,as the Dynamic is the essential nature of the static, there
remains, essentially, only one reality of Quality, not two'. (Anthony
McWatt's PhD p 70, my insertions).

[Krimel]
Right Quality should be seen and THE undefined term. It is undefined in
exactly the same way the James understands perception and Lao Tsu see the
Tao.
SQ and DQ are ways of talking about Quality.

[Andre]
 As mentioned before DQ can be referred to as the 'pre-intellectual
cutting-edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and
always new... It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and
punishments'.(Lila,p 119).

[Krimel]
And there you have the problem. Quality is the "pre-intellectual..." As I
have said Pirsig is the source of this confusion. I think more often than
not when Pirsig uses DQ  when he really should be using Quality his  meaning
is clear within its context. The real confusion comes from us over analyzing
and nit picking. 

[Andre]
I hope this may reconcile both your approaches Krimel since DQ is NOT to be
understood as GOOD, nor as chaos. In Pirsig's words Not This, Not That.

[Krimel]
Hope spring eternal but no cigar.