[MD] Two Contexts of the MOQ?

[david buchanan]

Ant said to Marsha:

Paul Turner has just sent me a short paper about there being two perspectives (or as Paul terms it, "two contexts") of the MOQ. I don't think there's an identity with the two perspectives that you talk about below (as Paul's "perspectives" are both purely intellectual patterns) but his paper will be uploaded at robertpirsig.org in the next week so you (and everyone who reads this, of course!) can take a look yourself.


dmb says:
Looking forward to Paul's paper. 
In the meantime, I wonder what you think of Marsha's two perspectives. The first one seems pretty straight forward; the MOQ is the set of ideas provided by Pirsig in his writings. But I'd like to know what you make of Marsha's second perspective.   

The second one, she says, "is the MoQ as Reality = Quality (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: Value(unpatterned/patterned). In the second view, I am saying that the Metaphysics of Quality denotes Reality = Value(Dynamic/static). Metaphysics as first, or fundamental, principle. --- The first view might be explained as 'pointing to the moon', and the second view as 'direct experience.'"

It looks like unintelligible gibberish to me. Do you have any idea what this means?


Thanks, 




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marsha V stated May 27th 2013:
> 
> I take the two-view perspective of the MOQ. One view is the MOQ as the intellectual/conceptual metaphysical system, with all its examples and supporting explanation, which was presented by RMP in 'LILA' and with interviews, text and letters; and there is the MoQ as Reality = Quality (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: Value(unpatterned/patterned). In the second view, I am saying that the Metaphysics of Quality denotes Reality = Value(Dynamic/static). Metaphysics as first, or fundamental, principle. --- The first view might be explained as 'pointing to the moon', and the second view as 'direct experience.'
> 
>