Hello everyone
rich pretti wrote:
>
> To whom it may concern:
>
> I have isolated 7 distinct statements of predication in the moq. By
> "predicate" I mean an essential feature, or pattern of value, of the moq. As
> of now I see these:
>
> 1 - Quality is Reality
> 2 - Quality is Morality
> 3 - Quality is Undefinable
> 4 - Quality is Experience
> 5 - Quality is Dynamic
> 6 - Quality is Static
> 7 - Quality is Evolving
>
> Metaphors:
> -spokes of the wheel of Quality
> -petals of the flower of Quality
> -masks of the face of Quality
> -shadow cast by Lila's dance
> -what I'm getting at is the necessary dominance of aesthetic values in
> a developmental metaphysic of Quality.
>
> What I want to know is this:
>
> i: are there any true, good or beautiful statements of the form "Quality
> is..." which I have missed? In other words, within this framework, do you
> think I will be unable to correctly address any properties of Pirsig's
> thought?
Hi Rich
Nice to hear from you again! What about:
8 - Quality is empirical
"Quality is the empirical reality of the world." (pg 76 teal paperback)
This would seem to tie together both science and art, one of Pirsig's
aims in his SODV paper. In this regard I do not see necessary dominance
of aesthetic value but rather complementary value held within art in
regard to science and visa versa. For his MOQ to be taken seriously as a
metaphysics, Pirsig avows a need for static latching while
simultaneously realizing a need for Dynamic force of value in a drive
towards "betterment". This is done by recognizing value instead of
subject/object distinction, for:
"Values are more empirical ... than subjects or objects." (pg. 73)
>
> ii: do you believe any or all of statements #1-7? (or one's I missed)
> to what extent?
> do you value any or all of statements #1-7? (ditto)
> why?
Rich, your statements seem solid. But when you ask if I believe them I
must ponder a bit on how we define 'belief'. Normally, if we believe
something, we judge it to be true. We form agreements with each other
pertaining to nature of reality and mistakenly judge those agreement to
be a true reality. Are we able to believe in some "thing" which we
cannot define? An artist would perhaps call such belief faith in
oneself, and say yes, while a scientist who is objective would say no,
any "thing" without definition has no value.
So we're back to our original division between science and art if we
stick to belief as absolute truth. I believe in Quality. What's true is
not
necessarily what's Good.
>
> iii: what, if anything, can I say about "Dynamic Quality" which is valid
> within the scope of the moq's reasoning patterns, and which is worthwhile?
We cannot define Dynamic Quality but we can describe it by defining what
DQ is not.
Best wishes
Dan
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST