From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 03:17:50 GMT
[Paul]
I think we may be going around in circles but, nonetheless, here is a reply.
[Case]
I think you are right about going in circles. I am pretty sure we understand
each other and simply disagree.
>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.
Paul: No, Quality IS DQ plus SQ. DQ doesn't emerge from anything and
static patterns emerge from DQ.
[Case]
This would leave Quality equaling itself plus something else. I suppose with
all the lack of defination that may be Ok but I find it troublesome.
>[Case]
>Quality was purposely undefined. DQ is not equal to Quality.
Paul: Although this is based on your 'scheme' this is an example of the
equivocation I'm trying to avoid. To avoid ambiguity I would translate it
as:
"[In ZMM,] 'Quality' was purposely undefined. DQ is not equal to [the]
'Quality' [of LILA which includes static quality.]"
I think you equivocate because 'Quality' is used differently in ZMM to how
it is used in LILA (after Chapter 9) so it cannot be used without further
qualification.
[Case]
I don't think I have equivocated at all. I am steadfast in my conviction
that DQ is not the same as Quality, that it is one of the two polar
opposites that spin out of the Quality monism. As you have pointed out
Pirsig seems to share your view and what I regarded as understandable
exuberance on his part is actually what he meant. I still disagree with this
position and think it strips the MoQ of its potential to actually be a
useful metaphysics.
>[Case]
>It is Quality in its dynamic aspect. The word dynamic is easily defined and
seems to fit.
[Paul]
I agree that DQ is Quality in its Dynamic aspect but disagree that it is
defined because the undefined Quality of ZMM becomes the DQ of LILA.
Here is a description of 'Quality' as used in ZMM:
"He simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object can be
distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he
called awareness of Quality." [ZMM, p253]
"This preintellectual reality is what Phædrus felt he had properly
identified as Quality. Since all intellectually identifiable things must
emerge from this preintellectual reality, Quality is the parent, the source
of all subjects and objects." [ZMM, p253]
Which corresponds to the description of 'Dynamic Quality' in LILA:
"Dynamic Quality is the preintellectual cutting edge of reality, the source
of all things..." [LILA, p133]
Then in Chapter 11 he uses 'Quality' in a way which includes static
patterns:
"Nothing dominates Quality. If there's domination and possession involved,
it's Quality that dominates and possesses Lila. She's created by it. She's
a cohesion of changing static patterns of this Quality." [LILA, p159, Ch11]
So I suggest that 'Quality' is either used to refer to the combination of DQ
and SQ together or it isn't used on its own at all.
[Case]
The more I research this, with reference to Lila, the less support I find
for my position. Pirsig does say these things and I do disagree with them.
So according Ian's recent post:
"'Pro-MoQ' means - I think the MoQ is mostly correct and valuable, with a
few clarifications / intepretations (and resolutions of contradictions) that
might make it better or more comprehensive.
'Anti-MoQ' means - I think the MoQ is mostly wrong or useless, and here are
my alternatives to kill it off and replace it completely."
Can I still be in the Pro camp? I think I am a pretty orthodox ZMMer.
[Paul]
To carry on with the pseudo-maths, you seem to be saying that
(undefined Q) - (defined DQ) - (defined SQ) = (undefined Q)
and that therefore
Q = Q + DQ + SQ.
Which doesn't 'add up'. See what I mean?
[Case]
No, I don't see were the forumlation above comes from anything I have said.
As close as I would come is: Q=DQ+SQ but since the pseudo-math amounts to a
defination of Quality I am not really endorsing that either. My point is
that leaving DQ undefined even with the olidation you are attempting leaves
a big hole in the whole enterprise. Nothing is totally static even rocks
weather. Even stars burn out or collapse in on themselves. You seem to be
saying that Quality spins off Static Quality then lingers around to watch.
Lots of Yin and no Yang.
>[Case]
>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.
Paul: No problem at all, Case.
[Case]
Thanks, I am working at being less abbrasive. It might take a while though.
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 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 07:48:34 GMT