From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 16:36:56 GMT
>[Paul Turner]
>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.
>
>"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]
>
>[Case]
>Is this an offical announcement that 'Quality' has been removed from
>the MoQ?
Paul: Not yet, I'm waiting for some important paperwork to come back to
confirm it. Seriously though, I have neither the desire nor the authority
to make official announcements. I think the Pirsig quote will be of
interest to anyone who wants to know how he sees the transition occurring
between the two books in case it helps them better understand his intentions
- but his isn't the final word. That said, of course I would like my
suggestion to be accepted and that this perennial issue be put to bed but if
the history of this forum is anything to go by that is very unlikely to
happen.
[Case]
I was asking a serious question.
You stated an opinion bolstered by apparently personal communication with
The Boss. You provide little context for this; not even what question was
asked. And the answer is curiously off hand as though he can't imagine why
anyone would be confused. It is as though he is saying, "Yeah, they ran
lightning bolts through my brain over this Quality thing but I suppose it
really isn't strong enough to stand alone. So, if it's confusing anyone,
just skip it."
You seem to be saying that while ZMM is a book about monism, Lila represents
a conversion to dualism. And what a curious dualism this is. It is composed
of two terms: Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. In DQ the adjective
Dynamic appears to modify a noun but we can't use this noun alone and even
after modification it remains undefined. The second term SQ could at least
in theory be rendered meaningful but really only if you talk about
Static(Dynamic Quality) or SDQ.
The dualistic formulation you are left with in this DQ/SQ metaphysics if
rendered into pseudo-math is incomprehensible.
Quality = Dynamic Quality + Static Quality
Since Quality is not to be used alone you have either:
= Dynamic Quality + Static Quality
Or
Dynamic Quality = Dynamic Quality + Static Quality
Or
Undefined = Undefined + Kinda Defined
This sounds like the metaphysics of a large invisible cat, the only evidence
for which is static hair balls. We can't define the cat but we can hear it
purring as we sweep and that makes us feel special.
This seems to me to be an awful price to pay for refusing to acknowledge a
common sense definition of Dynamic Quality.
The only possibility of salvaging anything from what you present is that
what you really mean by DQ is Chaos and that SQ is the Order that emerges
naturally as one manifestation of Chaos.
On 11/6/2005 in the MD A Question of Balance / Rules of the Game thread I
laid out what I consider to be a viable Metaphysics of Quality. I would take
it as a kindness if you could point me to some MoQ threads where a similar
position has been advanced and rejected. I have only been participating here
about three months and during that time it has not come up unless I raised
it.
----------------------------------------------
Case said in another post: I just said I didn't see much correspondence in
the two Trinities. I await word on whether Trinitarians of MoQ will hence
forth be excommunicated.
Paul: Presumably this means me. I just think the 'Trinitarian'
interpretation is wrong, for the reasons provided.
[Case]
I think a Trinitarian formulation is incorrect as well. But I greatly prefer
a Trinity to a dualism, especially the kind of one legged dualism you
suggest. I maintain that the MoQ is monistic. I think the central monism is
undefined Quality and from it spring Yin-(SQ) and Yang-(DQ). I am dumb
founded by your assertion that Pirsig rejects this.
----------------------------------------------
[Paul]
Case also said: There are a lot of similarities between Christianity and
Buddhism.
For example:
Christians say you should be born again.
Buddhist cultivate the beginners mind.
Both are attempts infuse dynamic quality.
Paul: Despite being an atheist I found Robert Magliola's comparison between
Buddhism and Christianity in "Derrida on the Mend" very interesting. You
might too.
[Case]
I appreciate the reading tip but I am booked solid for the next couple of
months.
But to paraphrase the other part of that same post:
Theists say there is a supernatural being in charge.
Atheists say no one is in charge.
The MoQ says either way is scarily dynamic and you need something static to
get you through the night.
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 : Mon Nov 14 2005 - 16:44:44 GMT