From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 11:13:17 GMT
Dan,
>If, as I understand it to be, Quality is (purposely) left undefined in ZMM,
>then what articulated epistemic modality pertains to "it"? Isn't that
>instead what the MOQ is all about, as described in LILA?
Paul: First of all, I should point out that thesis (1) does not simply
correspond to ZMM even though most of it is contained in there. The
distinction between theses is partly an attempt to harmonise the two books
at an intellectual level and in this respect shouldn't be unduly influenced
by the effect of the timing of each publication on its relative content. It
is my contention, disputed though it is, that if ZMM had been written
alongside LILA, its 'Quality' would have been called 'Dynamic Quality'.
With respect to thesis (1) being described by me as broadly epistemological
this is because thesis (1) is more about the relationship of Dynamic Quality
to how and what we know than about the ontological question of 'what is',
which is picked up in thesis (2).
>Introducing Dynamic Quality into ZMM seems analogous to introducing the
>Quality event into LILA -- while it's easy enough to do, it seems improper
>somehow, not at all in keeping with Robert Pirsig's intentions (as I
>understand them to be). No disagreement with your theses, mind you, rather
>it seems better to leave Quality undefined within the context of ZMM.
Paul: Again, ZMM and thesis (1) are not identical in my scheme. And, as
stated above, I'm not so much 'introducing Dynamic Quality into ZMM' as
extracting from ZMM a contribution to a thesis which is expanded in LILA.
For this to occur, a translation of terms needs to be attempted, which I've
done.
Paul prev:>>The key point of thesis (1) is that knowledge does not consist
of
>>representations of independent properties of an objective world.
>
>So let's just say according to thesis (1) that there are no distinctions.
>Intellectually (according to thesis (2)) we create distinctions and believe
>them to be true.
Paul: There are distinctions in thesis (1), as I've defined it. Thesis (1)
contains Dynamic Quality and patterns of knowledge.
>In the translated quotes above, it appears (to me) that Quality (in a ZMM
>sense) is being conflated with quality (in an intellectual LILA sense). The
>thing is, we have to "get it" when it comes to the MOQ and getting it
>involves letting go of certain preconceived notions concerning the nature
>of
>how it is that we have come to perceive reality. Conflating the notion of
>Quality with the notion of quality doesn't lend itself well to us "getting
>it," in my opinion (of course).
Paul: Not sure who you suggest was doing the conflating? If it was me then
I'm not clear on how.
Paul prev:>>I also think the distinction between the two theses sheds light
on some of
>>the problems of terminology encountered in the MOQ. Firstly, as implied
>>earlier I think 'intellectual' as it is used in thesis (1) is subdivided
>>into social and intellectual quality in thesis (2) and one should be wary
>>of
>>equivocation here.
>
>I'm unsure of just what you're saying here. Earlier you state that thesis
>(1) has no levels yet here you seem to be saying that with thesis (1)
>you're
>using the intellectual level in a cultural sense (social and intellectual
>combined). Could you please elaborate on this?
Paul: Yes. I'm saying that 'intellectual' as used in thesis (1) e.g. in
parts of ZMM, does not correspond without ambiguity to 'the intellectual
level' introduced as part of thesis (2) midway through LILA. Therefore
consideration is required when moving between the two theses using the term
'intellectual'. For example, look at this statement from ZMM:
"The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of that small time
lag, is always in the past and therefore is always unreal. Any
intellectually conceived object is always in the past and therefore unreal."
[ZMM, p253]
In terms of thesis (2) I would say that one is aware of distinct objects (at
least enough to name them) at the social level, as is abundantly evident in
the writing of the ancient cultures that preceded the intellectual level.
Paul prev:>>Moreover, I suggest it is sometimes
>>necessary to 'back up' into the first stage to answer questions mistakenly
>>or inappropriately levelled at the second e.g., If intellect creates
>>subjects and objects, how is it that inorganic and biological objects
>>existed before intellect? The answer is that in thesis (1) all divisions
>>and assumptions are indeed contingent upon the activity of a
>discriminating
>>intellect.
>
>Why? If, as stated prior, thesis (1) contains no distinctions, no levels,
>then why are you introducing divisions now?
Paul: Thesis (1) contains no levels but it contains distinctions. Thesis
(1) is about Dynamic Quality and the patterns of knowledge it produces and
those patterns of knowledge make distinctions.
--------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your comments. One general comment I have is that the 'two
theses' as you see them seem to correspond to the 'two truths' of Buddhism.
I think your thesis (1) would correspond to the ultimate truth of
paramartha-satya and your thesis (2) would correspond to the conventional
truth of samvrti-satya. As I've laid them out in this thread, both thesis
(1) and (2) are part of samvrti-satya.
As a final note, as I have mentioned before, I think the division between
static and Dynamic Quality is best understood as an expression of the
two-truths doctrine which is why I don't see the DQ/SQ division as a
metaphysical dualism in the western tradition. From the intellectual
perspective of the everyday world in which the MOQ is written the division
exists but from the unwritten Buddha's perspective reality is an undivided
monism. The division into static and Dynamic is then intended to point to
the reality, and value, of both perspectives.
For a brief, non-MOQ note on the doctrine of two truths see this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-truths_doctrine
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 21 2005 - 13:41:04 GMT