[MD] DMB and Me

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre 

18 March.:

Bodvar before:
> > Listen. The dynamic, the flux, the undifferentiated aesthetic
> > continuum ...etc. is expressed by DYNAMIC QUALITY. What is the use of
> > postulating another more dynamic article?

Andre:
> Who is postulating another 'more dynamic' article?

You - or really Pirsig - by the pesky "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. 

If the DQ of the MOQ isn't the real Quality what is? I know that SOM 
says that what we think or write is just some subjective shadow of the 
real article "out there", but are we to perpetuate SOM? Isn't the MOQ 
supposed to be a "new deal"?   

Bodvar:
> > If it is  writing a metaphysics about it that robs it of its purity, and
> > you really think that language can be avoided ...phew, how naive is it
> > possible to be?

Andre:
> Naive enough to suggest that a social static PoV (language) cannot
> adequately be used to represent something dynamic, something
> ineffable. At best it can approximate, but then only in such way as to
> intuit.( e.g.by way of a koan) Its dynamic 'purity' cannot be
> 'captured' by a static pattern. In the MoQ this would be an immoral
> act.

What CAN be used? Isn't intuition or approximation also some static - 
conscious or unconscious - product? If you insist on this approach you 
are left with a Q variety of the paradox if a falling tree makes a noise 
with no listener. Is there Quality with no "medium" to convey it? 

Again, listen you dear fool: From the moment the S/O distinction is 
(metaphysically) rejected, there is no "objective" Quality that the MOQ 
is a "subjective" rendering of. I know that Pirsig don't use the S & O 
terms, but by calling the MOQ "static" and Quality "dynamic" he 
abuses dynamic and static to mean the same. DQ is dynamic - that's 
implied in the term, but the MOQ isn't static for saying so.         

Not to distract you from this crucial issue I stop here.

Thanks all the same Andre, you are a true thinker willing to probe the 
very foundations of the MOQ.
 
Bodvar