[MD] Art and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

[John Carl]

Joe,


On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Joseph Maurer <jhmau at comcast.net> wrote:

> Hi John and All,
>
> Imho metaphysics is a structure for knowledge.  Definition is required for
> the consideration of structure, true or false!
>
>
False.  If there is some structure, the consideration of it IS the
definition of it.  Consideration is required for definition, not the other
way around.


Joe:


> Pirsig proposes a structured DQ/SQ metaphysics.



John:  Well not the way you use "structured".  He certainly did not offer a
whole a complete metaphysics.  Not in only two books he didn't, which were
mostly rhetorical art.

  He offered a critique of existing metaphysical positions and the outlines
for a possible new metaphysics.   To a framer, the outlines is the whole
structure but I've found people want wall board and paint before they
choose to dwell therein.

Joe:



> DQ is indefinable.  In what
> form is DQ perceived?



John:  In many forms, depending upon what level you're framing the
question.
To the social level, DQ is that mysterious moving finger which picks some
people to be famous celebrities like Barak Obama.  But ultimately as a
concept, I'd say DQ is perceived by the blended mind - Romantic and Classic
- when a scientist comes upon a truth that is so beautiful he just
intuitively knows its true.  When an artist creates something beautiful
that makes sense to most people.  I think DQ can't be defined because it
can't be intellectually encapsulated but it can be perceived artistically.
Thus Pirsig's dictum, you can't define it but you know what it is.

Joe:


> A  structured experience of individuality 1 becomes
> the basis for the realization of DQ true or false,



John:

True.  Absolutely.


Joe:



> not experience itself
> which remains indefinable DQ/SQ.
>
>
>

Ya lost me there.

John

PS:


> On 1/14/14 11:02 AM, "John Carl" <ridgecoyote at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > seems to me that if something is truly indefinable, then the only way it
> > can maintain its meaning is if you don't define it (talk about it).
>
>
 is exactly right.  It's a "if-then" statement which leads to an absurdity
therefore proof that nothing is truly indefinable.  which I can support
from another direction if you want.

If definition is an evolving project then who knows where it will end up in
the future?  You can't say.  The best you could say is "DQ is undefined,
not indefinable."