[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[118]

Hi David,

All I can say is that I use Quality as it was meant to be used.  It is an
awareness through with to view reality.  It resides in the realm of
"insanity" and is difficult to translate into the "sane" vernacular for
obvious reasons, it does not see objects.  That is, the Quality paradigm is
"objectless".



This is made clear in Lila, if you bothered to read it.  This is the whole
point of dismissing SO metaphysics.  Quality is DQ+SQ.  Even in ZAMM, it
could be interpreted as such since it implied a world based on Quality with
truth as a subset.  That you have not read ZAMM very carefully, I cannot
control.
ZAMM is the story of “finding Quality”; Lila is the story of presenting
Quality in metaphysical terms, which would be Western terms (embodied by
subject/distinction).  That you would take a single quote from Pirsig made
in 2005 to base your whole understanding of Quality implies to me that you
are not near any kind of Quality awareness.
The purpose of MOQ is to give us a door to walk through into Quality.  It
is not meant to be a building we must live within, which is what you are
making it.

Let us keep in mind what Quality is at a fundamental level when we have our
discussions.  It is not an object, it is not DQ.  Let’s try to remain
focused on Quality before we misspeak about MOQ.



Thanks,

Mark

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:46 PM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com>
wrote:

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.
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html