From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Thu Nov 17 2005 - 21:51:15 GMT
[Case}
>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.
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.
[Case]
>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.
[Case]
IF that is your intent dropping Quality doesn't solve the problem. You are
still left with a forumlation that has DQ and SQ emerge from Quality. SQ is
defined DQ is not. See above.
>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.
[Case]
Quality was purposely undefined. DQ is not equal to Quality. It is Quality
in its dynamic aspect. The word dynamic is easily defined and seems to fit.
>[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.
[Case]
Christianity would claim to be monistic even with it's trinitarian
forumlation. As would Taoism with its. Sorry for being snippy I have been
frustrated over this for sometime now and have not really gotten any
response in the past to questions about it.
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 : Thu Nov 17 2005 - 23:41:56 GMT