[MD] Fw: Evil in the Church of Reason (remail)

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Dan (Joe and Marsha mentioned) --

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joseph  Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> IMHO the metaphysical division of DQ/SQ defined, undefined, leaves one
> in a quandary. When I realize the quandary as the description of knowing I
> realize some things are indefinable. How can I know the indefinable. Wrong
> conclusions do not force the attention to the indefinable, rather to the
> process which is a roundabout way of bringing metaphysics in by the back
> door instead of starting with indefinable as part of reality.

 You responded::

> We define the undefined all the time. We could say the process of
> awareness is that process of defining. When we discover we've failed
> to define some thing properly (a wrong conclusion) we're momentarily
> at a loss. That sense of loss is the beginning response to Dynamic
> Quality that leads to greater knowledge.
>
> In "echoing" John you are echoing a wrong conclusion. Perhaps it is an
> opportunity for you both to learn from it... or not.

 If the Church of Reason signifies our guide to clear thinking and 
(possible)
 wisdom, the "Evil" must be in not following it . . .or, in the confusion
 that may result from trying to follow it..

 Joe used the word "undefined" in stating his quandary.  Pirsig; however,
 used the term "indefinable" consistently when describing DQ.  There is a
 significant difference in meaning between these two words.  What is
 "indefinable" can NEVER be defined, whereas something that is "undefined"
 today may be defined tomorrow.  So your example of awareness as "the 
process
 of defining" does not address his problem which is: "How can I know the
 indefinable?"

 I, too, have a problem with DQ as posited by Mr. Pirsig.

 In a note to Joe under another thread, Marsha said this about DQ::

> Mr. Pirsig stated it was unknowable, as well as indivisible and
> undefinable.  That would be no-thing to know and no one to
> know it.  As Dan said, it is best explained as what it is not.

 If, indeed, DQ is both indivisible and undefinable, as well as unknowable,
 how can it be divided into definable patterns of static quality?  And how
 can our response to Dynamic Quality lead, as you say, "to greater
 knowledge"?

 Surely you must see that there is a lack of clarity in the meaning and 
usage
 of these "quality" terms.  I look to you as an authority on the MoQ --
 possibly the High Priest of the Church of Reason.

 Can you provide a simple, logical answer to my questions, Dan?   Or are 
such
 answers presumed to be forever hidden in the mystical nature of Quality
 itself?

 Sincere thanks,
Ham