[MD] Nagarjuna and the MOQ

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
In this way you, Arlo, and others may see that I am not here to condemn 
the MoQ, nor am I "totally antagonistic" toward Pirsig's tenets.

[Ham later in same post]
This is, in fact, the fundamental fundamental premise of Essentialism. 
Unfortunately, it is missing (possibly hidden?) in Pirsig's exposition.

[Ham moving backwards in the archives]
I have never understood why Pirsig settled for Quality over Value as his 
fundamental reality, especially having outlined the nature of Value in 
his SODV paper.  Of course, I maintain that neither term can be fundamental

Perfectly comprehensible, right?

By making reality "indefinable" Pirsig's template essentially ignores 
metaphysics, which is why the MoQ is not a metaphysical thesis in the 
classical sense.  What he has constructed is a euphemistic paradigm 
("figures of speech", as Steve would say) for evolutionary existence.

Doesn't this make more sense than trying to fathom what "following DQ" 
really means?

I'm confused enough that Pirsig has ascribed "dynamic" to the ultimate 
Reality (which is unjustified IMO) while defining a world in constant 
flux as "static patterns".  In addition to interpreting the temporal 
process of evolution as "levels", we are required to classify all 
experience as either "definable" or "indefinable".  Now you add 
"intentional" and "real" to this list of experiential qualifiers.  Is 
there no end to the MoQ's complexity?

I view the MoQ as neither physics nor metaphysics but as a euphemistic 
paradigm of differentiated existence.

I would suggest that Steve's "frustration" is a result of having to deal 
with a "logically incoherent" philosophy.  His statements are certainly 
not intended as a personal vendetta, and his conclusions are no more 
confused than anyone else who attempts to configure his epistemology to 
Mr. Pirsig's evolutionary paradigm.

In my opinion, the MoQ is incomplete as a metaphysical theory, and the 
hierarchical levels of evolution do not account for the emergence of 
proprietary awareness which is necessary for the realization of Value.  
I'm well aware that these are serious charges, but it's clear to me that 
the Quality thesis in its present form falls short of providing a 
meaning for cognizant life and is an inadequate guide to human morality.

Only by acknowledging the free self can the MoQ survive as a viable and 
comprehensible philosophy.

Mr. Prisig would like us to believe it's Quality.  He elevates DQ to the 
supreme level and reduces everything else to a static pattern of Quality 
and -- Eureka! -- he's got a metaphysics.  But metaphysics is more than 
a euphemistic paradigm.  And "pattern" is only a convenient fudge-word 
that avoids having to posit a workable thesis.

As Marsha would put it: it's all analogy and reified conventionalism.  
In other words, why ruin the fantasy by struggling to define it?  This 
may not accurately express RMP's metaphysics, but it certainly reflects 
his poetic spirit IMO.

Also, as many times as this has been quoted, can I be the only one who 
sees the absurdity of this statement?
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of 
quality it is without choice.  But to the extent that one follows 
Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."

And, as much as I'd like to accommodate it to Qualityism, the fact that 
Quality is not a primary source makes this a logical impossibility.  
That's the dilemma I confront in this forum.  The "problem" I have with 
the MoQ is indeed "fundamental"; it is the fundament that Quality lacks.

You are perpetrating a fallacy conjured up by Pirsig.

Pirsig allegedly got his inspiration for the MoQ from Zen Buddhism.  But 
when he and Marsha (who also studies Orientalism) conclude that there is 
no self, I begin to despair that there is any hope left for Western 
Philosophy.

[Arlo]
This only goes back to June, and I left out larger passages.

In fairness, I've tried to find parts where you saying anything 
supportive of Pirsig's MOQ. I can go back further, if you wish.