[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[Horse]

Hi David

OK - that makes sense. I was getting worried for a while there!
The general idea is that in ZMM, where Pirsig is first developing his 
ideas about Quality, there is no differentiation between what would 
later become the DQ/SQ split of Quality. Once Pirsig started to develop 
the MoQ as a metaphysics, what he had referred to as Quality in ZMM 
became DQ (undefined) and SQ (definable).
I can see where the confusion could apply though when trying to 
reconcile the terms used in ZMM and Lila as, unless you take into 
account the above, it could appear that:

if
Quality = DQ
and
Quality = DQ + SQ
then
DQ = DQ + SQ
!!!!!
Although that's fairly superficial.

To precis:
Quality(ZMM) = DQ(Lila)
Quality(Lila) = DQ(Lila) + SQ(Lila)

Yep! Makes sense now.

Cheers

Horse


On 25/09/2012 22:46, David Harding 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
>

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa