Elephant,
Hey. I hope you don't mind if I briefly jump in on this thread carried over from the MF.
>
> ELEPHANT wrote to MAGNUS:
> And this is my concluding point. Since you have allowed to DQ the
> characteristics of being a property, of being fragmentable, of being static
> in the definition of an event or subject-object pairing, you have in fact
> allowed to DQ *all* the characteristics of SQ. I am thus unclear as to
> what, in your view, distinguishes the DQ from SQ. I began by asking you for
> an account of the common element between DQ and SQ, such that both could be
> called "quality", and you have indeed out done yourself in the clarity of
> your reply. You apparently maintain, in practice, that what they have in
> common is that, for all intents and purposes, they are the same thing.
> I offered you another account of the relationship between DQ and SQ,
> according to which the last is to the first as a diary to a life. Having
> heard your competing account, I have decided, for the moment, to stick with
> my own.
>
And in a slightly earlier post ELEPHANT writes...
>
> ...Without such an account, which I have often tried to give, it will seem that
> > the appearance of the word 'quality' in both names is entirely random and
> > unwarranted, and with that seeming, Pirsig's entire philosophy will be at
> > nought.
About your account...
I very much appreciate your "....the last is to the first as a diary to
a life" analogy as "an account of the relationship between DQ and SQ".
However, I fail to see how "an account of the relationship between DQ and
SQ" constitutes "an account of the common element between DQ and SQ, such
that both could be called 'quality'...".
Clever as your analogy is, it only illustrates the relationship between DQ and SQ, and not "the appearance of
the word 'quality' in both names". DQ and SQ share a Q because they are
supposedly differing species of the greater Quality described in ZMM (and
alluded to in the last paragraph of LILA as "the ultimate Quality"). Though
a "diary" and "life" may share a relationship similar to the relationship
shared by DQ and SQ, they are not differing species of the one greater thing
as DQ and SQ are posited to be.
Explaining the appearance of the word 'Quality' in both names would be
more akin to explaining why a Panther and a Puma are both species of Feline,
yet not the same creature. What set of characteristics urge us to call both
a "Cat", yet still leave us a good reason to distinguish between the two???
Similarly, what set of circumstances urges us to attach a Q to both the D
and the S, yet still distinguish between the two???
You amply illustrate the relationship between the D and the S, but do not explain the distguishing element of the Q. What would be lost if we read the DQ in LILA as simply "the dynamic" and the SQ as simply "the static"??? This is the question before you.
In sum: I believe your account of the relationship between DQ and SQ
fails (as Magnus's did) to show why the Q in DQ and SQ is not superfluous.
> perhaps I misunderstand you???
> rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:26 BST