[MD] Why does Pirsig write everybody's right about mind and matter although his theses imply the opposite?

[mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net]

Dan,

well I'm glad just to continue discussion with you. However,  
apparently the point of my earlier message got buried under the pep  
talk. That point pertains to something you just wrote!


Lainaus Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com>:

> Tuk, all,
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:25 PM,  <mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net> wrote:
>> Ron, all,
>
>> You can see not everyone likes me.
>
> Dan:
> Just so you understand, I do not dislike you. I enjoy our discussions,
> to a point. I do get frustrated, however, when you seem to ignore what
> I am saying after I spend a good deal of time saying it. I work 7
> hours a day six days a week, plus I devote enough time each day to
> write what I consider a good number of words. Between that, I must
> wedge my time to eat, sleep, and perform all the other necessities of
> life.


Tuukka:
Let's just behave as if it were a good thing I can work on this  
full-time, okay? I'm not saying I would. In fact I'm quite spontaneous  
and unpredictable even to myself. That's why I'm not promising to work  
on this full-time. But I could if I wanted to. And have often done so.


> As I stated previously, you seem stuck on A or not A.


Tuukka:

This might be true but MD isn't about what I think. MD is about what  
Pirsig thinks. And Pirsig writes in LILA:

"The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with  
experience, and economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality  
satisfies these."

Pirsig explicitly states that the MOQ is consistent. This means the  
MOQ is not paraconsistent. If the MOQ isn't paraconsistent it's always  
true that either A or not A. This is a feature of all consistent forms  
of logic.


> I think we are all of us
> responsible for our own education, and I don't mean this in a
> denigrating way, but yours seems lacking, at least when it comes to
> the MOQ. And I think you pretty much admitted that already.


Tuukka:
I haven't yet read Lila's Child completely.


> If you want to improve upon the MOQ, know the MOQ first.


Tuukka:

It doesn't surprise me that you want me to read Lila's Child and I  
admit that I'm gambling in a way. I don't positively know Lila's Child  
not to include some statement that renders the Heinous Quadrilemma  
somehow ineffectual. But I have asserted that it doesn't contain such  
a statement and nobody has proven me wrong. If I complete reading  
Pirsig's annotations I will post a message about whether he manages to  
save the MOQ or not.


Regards,
Tuk