[MD] The hrd question

[Andre Broersen]

dmb to Marsha:

Static pattens of quality are CONTRASTED with ever-changing experience, which is otherwise known as Dynamic Quality.

Marsha's reply:
Seems to me the quote stated ALL experience.  Are you suggesting that static (patterned) value is not experience?

Andre:
Yes, but it is experienced 'statically' Marsha. It is repeated. Now, I am nearly at my wit's end and feel that dmb is getting there as well in terms of trying to convey to you that Pirsig's MOQ does NOT HAVE Quality. Rather, Quality HAS the MOQ.

Take the pattern: 'showering'. Now, I'm sure you take a shower (or bath for that matter) regularly. I am sure, to use the analogy of the sage saying that 'you never step in the same river twice' is a very nice and valid one and I am sure that you can argue that your showering or bathing never occurs exactly in the same way as before.

But the point is that the pattern 'showering' and the pattern 'bathing' is nevertheless used and applicable and very pragmatic in its conventional use. Everyone knows what you are talking about when you say: 'I showered today'. Is this so difficult? Do you have problems with this  (even taking the MOQ perspective? Even the Buddhist perspective? Even a combination thereof?)

It seems you do because  you keep on saying: As Hagen 202 (1997, p.30) notes, one of the most fundamental truths noted by the Buddha is that all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change. According to the Buddha, when a person ignores this truth they subject themselves to dukkha."

Which is very true and a beautiful insight. But what you fail to accept or understand or both is that the MOQ does not deal in 'fundamental truths'. That is those 'fundamental truths' you are referring to. The MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of quality. That is all. There is no 'fundamental truth contained within the MOQ.

It has done nothing for the Tao (ZMM). What has benefitted is reason/rationality. You fail to understand the distinction. The MOQ, as an intellectual pattern of quality is also provisional.

DQ is a referring term! DQ, and here meaning Quality, is NOT part of the MOQ!

Your definition of static patterns of quality, your five sentence definition does exactly what Pirsig abhorred in Plato: you are trying to incorporate DQ, you are trying to encapsulate it. You probably do not mean to, but you do. And in the process you make an incredible mess of things as a result.

As dmb and myself keep on saying, you create this word salad thing of a definition because you are conflating the two basic premises of the MOQ as though they are the premises of experience itself! In other words you still confuse (as Bodvar did) the MOQ with Experience (DQ).

Given your line of reasoning Marsha: why did Pirsig even bother to write LILA? Could it possibly be the case that Pirsig is aware of the ignorance of this truth among many, therefore being subjected to dukkha, and having lead to this incredible moral rustbelt which is called the twentieth century.

If all is 'in constant flux and change' as you maintain, why did Pirsig bother? Why did he write LILA? Why, oh why (and I have asked you this before) did Gautama Buddha get up from under the bodhi tree? Why didn't he just remain there?

Do you go out of your door sometimes? Do you follow the social, economic, environmental and intellectual events at all?

We live in the conventional world Marsha, NOT in the world of the Buddhas.(and don't wank me by saying that we really do but do not realize it...that would be really off)

We do NOT live in the world of the Buddhas. A metaphysics oriented on the world of the Buddhas, as you maintain, plead for, fight for and stubbornly defend makes no sense within a metaphysics meant to improve this world a little. Something people can work with...take in their head into their heart and translate through their hands.

The last thing anybody wants to have nowadays is a polemic on how their showering was fundamentally different from their showering yesterday...given that one had the chance to even enjoy one!

I just want to finish off with a general question to those contributing to the MOQ in any sensible way: does Marsha's presentation (and therefore perspective) on Pirsig's MOQ help or hinder or flobberdiblobs our understanding of the MOQ?
Are you finding it a great nuisance that I keep on sitting on her back trying to correct her? In other words; is my correction justified and of value for the MOQ or should I not bother?

As you can see I am at my wit's end. For what it is worth.