From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 12 2005 - 15:07:31 GMT
Hi Paul our MOC (master of clarity)
nice to hear from you.
I agree with argument but not with dropping
quality as the holistic term for SQ/DQ.
I think quality is useful when we want to
refer to experience as a whole and prior
to the metaphysical split into either DQ
or SQ. But agree it is useful to use quality only when necessary.
Would we want to see DQ as that which remains when
you park the SQ on one side? So an MOQ theory of
everything would be all the SQ you could set out
(in fact an infinite or never ending project I would suggest)
on one side leaving the remaining un SQ-able DQ. So a theory of every-thing
that is
thing-able but there is always some no-thing left. I
see some talk in the philosphy of science that is
recognising this. John Dupre says in his Disorder of Things
that he should have really called it 'the General Disorder and
occasional Order of Things'. The DQ really out blasts the SQ.
Regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 3:59 PM
Subject: MD Quality, DQ and SQ
>I notice that the relationship between the terms 'Quality', 'Dynamic
> Quality' and 'static quality' is back on the table.
>
> I suggest that the view that 'Quality' remains something above and beyond
> static and Dynamic Quality within the MOQ structure is incorrect. I think
> the confusion arises from the transition between the two books. In ZMM
> there is no reference to 'Dynamic Quality', being that 'static quality' is
> not referred to in any clear way. As I see it, at a certain point in LILA
> the single term 'Quality' is effectively replaced(*) with the two terms -
> 'static quality' and 'Dynamic Quality'.
>
> I have asked Pirsig about all of this recently, he replied as follows:
>
> "When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and
> static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by
> Dynamic
> Quality. Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and
> static quality. So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of
> terms
> but if they do arise I would guess that they could be eliminated by
> refraining from using the term Quality alone." [Pirsig to Turner, November
> 2005]
>
> "The 'static quality' of LILA...seems to me to be an expansion of the
> 'Quality' of ZMM" [Pirsig to Turner, August 2005]
>
> The expansion of Quality to include a static as well as a Dynamic
> component
> occurs in Chapter 9 of LILA so I would suggest that after this chapter the
> term 'Dynamic Quality' is used to refer to what was termed 'Quality' in
> ZMM
> and, conversely, Pirsig's use of 'Quality' alone can be read as 'Dynamic
> Quality' prior to the start of Chapter 9 but as a reference to both static
> and Dynamic Quality together subsequent to it.
>
> PRE-LILA(9) QUALITY = DYNAMIC QUALITY
> POST-LILA(9) QUALITY = DYNAMIC QUALITY + STATIC QUALITY
>
> Although I agree with the argument concerning the redundancy of having two
> undefined terms, given the clarification above I think that, post-LILA, it
> is a mistake to consider 'Quality' to be undefined and 'Dynamic Quality'
> to
> be defined as has been recently suggested. If anything it would be the
> other way around i.e. Quality, insofar as it 'includes' static quality, is
> partially defined and Dynamic Quality is the undefined component of
> Quality.
>
> However, whilst I think this convention can be used to harmonise the two
> books, I propose that in ongoing discussions the term 'Quality' alone
> should
> be dropped, as Pirsig suggests, to avoid problems resulting from a lack of
> clarity.
>
> (*) I can't think of any situation where the use of the term 'Quality'
> could not be more clearly replaced with either 'Dynamic Quality', 'static
> quality' or 'static and Dynamic Quality'.
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> 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 Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sat Nov 12 2005 - 15:14:37 GMT