[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Horse,

> Hi David
> 
> It's not often that I agree with Mark but I have to say that on this one that I think we do agree.
> It's always been my understanding that Quality is our fundamental reality and that DQ and SQ are two different sides of the Quality coin.
> So from this I find it hard to reconcile that Quality = DQ as this leaves a huge gap in our understanding of Quality.
> I would agree that both Quality and DQ are undefinable but SQ must be defined in order to create a coherent metaphysics.
> 
> Perhaps I've missed something somewhere along the line and you could explain what it is I've missed.

That's right.  Quality from ZMM becomes DQ in Lila and sq + DQ is Quality thereafter.  Mark however, keeps getting them confused when he uses the word 'Quality' - probably because he hasn't read Lila?  Anyway, to avoid this confusion it is good to point out that the Quality he often uses is only in the context of DQ..  In other words it's best to get back to using the terms DQ and sq exclusively when talking with Mark to demonstrate the first division of the MOQ and avoid further confusion..

"When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic Quality.  Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and static quality.  So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of terms but if they do arise I would guess that they could be eliminated by refraining from using the term Quality alone." [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005] 

Thanks Horse,

-David.