[MD] The first cut.

[david buchanan]

 Andre said to D.Harding:
..I completely agree. The MOQ shows that sq is a manifestation of DQ (Quality). But how do we apprehend Quality? Through recognizing this (sq) manifestation without which there is no realization possible in the first place, no?   Marsha's use of sq is negative. She continues to argue that position on the basis of pointing to their inherent, empty nature. It's all relative, it's not real, it's all words, it's all just somebody's opinion. In other words; nihilistic. ...


dmb says:
Right. Pirsig's purpose is not to spread otherworldly mysticism. The MOQ is aimed at improving our modes of analysis, our ways of thinking, our philosophies. Undefined Quality (DQ) has everything to do with this project, but the metaphysics itself is conceptual and intellectual and it is given to us in words. The shape and meaning and purpose of the MOQ is not, not, not supposed to be some elusive mystery. It's a set of ideas that one can understand rightly. Or not. This does not demand any meditative practices or spiritual disciplines, exactly, but it does take some effort and skill as a reader and thinker.

There is plenty of room for debate. There's more than one right way to read Pirsig. But undoing the MOQ's first (and most central) distinction is certainly not one of them. Philosophical conversations demand that we use terms in coherent, non-contradictory ways. I'm just not seeing anything like that from Marsha. Not even close. And she never even seems to understand why anyone would object, even after the contradictions are quoted and the objection to them is explained.

It's despicable.