From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 14 2005 - 19:48:10 GMT
Case,
<I sent this before it was finished, please read this one as the complete
one>
>I was asking a serious question.
Paul: Forgive me for being friendly. I did give you a serious answer
though.
>You stated an opinion bolstered by apparently personal communication
>with The Boss. You provide little context for this; not even what
>question was asked.
Paul: Okay, I apologise for omitting this, I thought the context was clear
enough. The context was just the question I had, albeit one amongst many I
have been asking. The question was:
"One of the topics which repeatedly surfaces with respect to the MOQ is
whether 'Quality' [as used in ZMM] and 'Dynamic Quality' are synonyms. It
is my understanding that this is the case and that, for example, if ZMM was
re-edited with respect to the content of LILA all references to 'Quality'
could be substituted with 'Dynamic Quality' with no loss of accuracy.
How do you see it?"
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."
Paul: I really don't see that. I just see a straight answer to a straight
question and maybe that he isn't aware of any problems whereas I think there
are some.
>You seem to be saying that while ZMM is a book about monism, Lila
>represents a conversion to dualism.
Paul: No, Quality is a monism but it gets expanded in LILA i.e. all that
exists are varying types of Quality, Dynamic and static; but once we make
this distinction it does not remain above and beyond DQ and SQ which would
make it part of a trinity. Maybe we define monism differently?
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.
Paul: I don't get this. The adjective 'Dynamic' is used to indicate it is
beyond static definition, as it is used in the MOQ anyway.
>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
Paul: No, post-LILA, Quality = DQ + SQ therefore, post-LILA, Quality is
partially defined. The problem I want to avoid is the way people sometimes
use 'Quality' to refer to DQ, and sometimes to both DQ + SQ together and
sometimes to a third thing, as you do.
>This seems to me to be an awful price to pay for refusing to
>acknowledge a common sense definition of Dynamic Quality.
Paul: A common sense definition of something which is purposely undefined
doesn't make sense to me.
>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.
Paul: Sam Norton has raised it and I think Matt Kundert has in the past. I
don't have the time right now but when I do I'll have a look and provide
some links.
>----------------------------------------------
>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: Well I'm sorry if I've burst you bubble or generally just pissed you
off. I agree that it is a monism though, as above. Although what you've
described is a trinity to me. Again, maybe we define monism differently.
Regards
Paul
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 - 20:25:34 GMT