From: John Howard (john66@attbi.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 04:27:17 GMT
Hi Scott,
Well, Pirsig doesn't hesitate to divide Quality into a duality, Static and
Dynamic, and then just doesn't address what drives it or holds it together.
If he calls it Quality also, then the force would be the third part of the
Trinity.
That is precisely how the Trinity of Christianity is divided, in that all
are called God, and the power that drives it is called God also. When you
make the connection that God is Love, you can say that Love is the power
that drives it. If Pirsig were to give the force a different name, perhaps
it would be Loving Quality?
This isn't what I started out to say, I didn't intend to arrive at the
Trinity, and I certainly am not an expert on it (are there any?). I'm not
sure what the Holy Ghost is, but doesn't it seem to describe Dynamic
Quality? I just tried to identify Love as the power that drives dynamic
quality, and the power that holds static patterns of value together. But it
is striking (to me) how well it matches up.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 10:06 PM
Subject: Re: MD Pirsig an artist - MoQ & love
> John,
>
> > Thanks for addressing my question of what drives things. Does Pirsig
just
> > say Quality drives itself? If so, I think he is just avoiding the
> question,
> > or refusing to divide up Quality into a Trinity of Static Quality
> > (Son/Christ/Created Existence) Dynamic Quality (Holy Ghost) and the
> Quality
> > that drives things (Father/God/Love). He names the Quality Duo of
Static
> > and Dynamic Quality, does he ever name the power that he just calls
> Quality
> > that is the force that drives things?
>
> Not sure of your subsequent question here, or maybe I would rather not
guess
> at an answer. Isn't he naming the power that drives (or creates) things
> 'Quality'?
>
> I'm also a bit leery of trying to match up the Pirsigian trinity with
> Christianity's, in part because it is an unanswerable question, and in
part
> because if Pirsig didn't get around to talking about it, it may be a
> "misreading too far". In my view, the need to divide up the divine into a
> trinity is not because that's the way the divine is, but because we are
> mistaken if we call the divine One or Three, and we are also mistaken if
we
> drop the question entirely (that is, I think it is good for us to butt our
> intellects against mystery, but not so as to come to a conclusion).
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 29 2003 - 04:25:09 GMT