[MF] MOQ: valuable or not?

[Lorenz Gude]

I would just add that Persig does discuss this issue at length in ZAMM 
and Lila. One point I remember him making is that a key rule of 
metaphysics is that once you make the first split - subject and object 
or dynamic quality and static quality you have to rigorously define your 
terms. Metaphysics and definitions evidently only start with the first 
split. I have read and reread Persig's comparisons of the SOM and the 
MOQ many times and am still wrestling to with what I think of it. All I 
am sure of is that it still seems to be a quality experience for me. :-)

Marty Jorgensen wrote:
> Hi Matt - thanks for the response.
>
> Matt said:
>
> I think it would be bad policy for a Pirsigian to say that "if 
> you want to make a claim, philosophically speaking, your terms need to be
> well defined" when you consider the fact that Pirsig spins his whole
> philosophy out of a central term that he considers centrally important to
> leave undefined.  So my suggestion is basically just that if you want to
> debate with those who use the locution "God is Love," you might want to use
> a different tactic (unless you don't find much force in Pirsig's
> philosophy)..... And as for the linguistic issue, I don't think there's much
> difference between saying "God is Love" and "Quality is undefined."  
>
> Marty replies:
>
> Well, first of all I don't consider myself a 'Pirsigian'; I have really
> enjoyed his writing and his stories, but I'm not yet fully on board.  That
> said, though, I think there is a significant difference between "God is
> Love" and "Quality is undefined".  Pirsig has put a lot of effort into
> explaining how quality works in the world and how to recognize it.  Saying
> that "Quality is undefined" doesn't leave us with nowhere to go; Quality,
> like the Tao, may not be specifically defined, but for Pirsig's purposes, it
> doesn't have to be.  "God is Love", on the other hand, IS a definition; it
> is saying that "God" and "Love" are somehow equal, without ever saying what
> either one is. "God is Love" is defining God and Love, without explaining
> what these terms are referring to.  There are all kinds of love and I've
> heard quite a few definitions of God, so unless you explain which ones you
> mean, I have no idea of what you're talking about.
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> moq_focus mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_focus-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_focus-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_focus_archive/
>