From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 27 2005 - 10:31:21 GMT
Dan,
>Thank you for your reply. Dynamic Quality doesn't make sense. Quality does.
>In other words, even though we cannot define Quality, we all know it when
>we
>see it. On the other hand, when we recognize Dynamic Quality it's no longer
>Dynamic Quality but instead some "thing" else. It just doesn't seem at all
>likely (to me) that Robert Pirsig would have used Dynamic Quality in place
>of Quality if ZMM were written side by side with LILA.
Paul: It seems more than likely to me.
"When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and
static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic
Quality. Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and
static quality." [Pirsig to Turner, November 2005]
“Dynamic Quality is the only part of Quality described in ZMM. It is the
part of Quality about which everyone agrees." [Pirsig. AHP Lecture, 1993]
"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]
"Dynamic Quality is the preintellectual cutting edge of reality, the source
of all things..." [LILA, p133]
>>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.
>
>Well, okay. But your previous paragraph seems to contradict what you're
>saying here: "It is my contention, disputed though it is, that if ZMM had
>been written alongside LILA, its 'Quality' would have been called 'Dynamic
>Quality'."
Paul: My point is that to look at the MOQ in terms of a philosophical
treatise and not as two separate novels one has to translate the terms. I'm
not suggesting anyone rewrite ZMM.
>>Paul: There are distinctions in thesis (1), as I've defined it. Thesis
>>(1)
>>contains Dynamic Quality and patterns of knowledge.
>
>The MOQ states quite clearly that Dynamic Quality cannot be contained. If
>that is your intention then I don't see how thesis (1) could ever be part
>of
>the MOQ.
Paul: I think you're splitting hairs a little here. I used "contains" in
the same innocuous sense that one can say that your LILA index contains
Dynamic Quality. Substitute "refers to" if it sounds better.
>I assume you're the one who wrote the two theses so I presume you are the
>one who is conflating the notion of Quality with quality. As to how, let's
>look to one of your translated paragraphs:
>
>>"The [first thesis of the] MOQ says that Quality comes first, which
>>produces
>>ideas, which produce what we know as matter. The scientific community
>that
>>has produced Complementarity almost invariably presumes that matter comes
>>first and produces ideas. However, as if to further the confusion, the
>>[second thesis of the] MOQ says that the idea that matter comes first is a
>>high quality idea!" [LILA'S CHILD, Annotation 67]
>
>The MOQ states that Quality comes first AND the idea that matter comes
>first
>is a high quality idea. It is my understanding that by adding "the
>scientific community" we are in the second case dealing with defined
>quality
>intellectual patterns of value while in the first case we are dealing with
>undefined Quality. That's why I think you're conflating the two.
Paul: Yes but he says
(1) Quality comes first, then static ideas, then static matter.
Then he says that it is a high quality idea that
(2) Quality comes first, then static (inorganic) matter, then static
(intellectual) ideas.
My thesis (1) agrees with statement (1) and thesis (2) with statement (2).
I don't think I'm conflating static and Dynamic Quality at all here.
>I always assumed that Robert Pirsig used intellect as defined in the
>dictionary:
>
>intellect
>n.
>
>The ability to learn and reason; the capacity for knowledge and
>understanding.
>The ability to think abstractly or profoundly. See Synonyms at mind.
>A person of great intellectual ability. (www.dictionary.com)
>
>The key here is "the ability to think abstractly" I should think. Naming is
>one thing, but the development of writing skills would seem to require an
>abstract intellectual ability at an individual or small group level even
>though the culture which the individual(s) belongs to may not be considered
>a primarily intellectually based culture.
Paul: Agreed, but what about the tree? One can be aware of a tree without
being able to write down abstract thoughts.
>>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.
>
>Again, it's my understanding that it is a mistake to say anything at all
>about Dynamic Quality. So I would have to reject thesis (1) outright as
>something we cannot know, and if we do make a claim to be knowledgable
>about
>Dynamic Quality, it's merely our self importance rearing its ugly head. We
>know nothing regarding Dynamic Quality nor can we ever, for as soon as we
>know, "it" is no longer Dynamic Quality but something defined.
Paul: I guess I'm just riddled with self importance then because it is my
understanding that everyone knows Dynamic Quality. It is what we know
before anything else. Knowing it intellectually, however, is impossible.
Paul:>>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.
>
>Yes that is how I read your two theses so I better understand my mistake
>now. Thank you. I suppose I thought you might have been delving deeper than
>what you apparently are.
Paul: Not sure it's about depth. I would say that the perspective of
paramartha-satya cannot be rightly described as a thesis. Theses are always
static.
Thanks for your comments.
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 : Sun Nov 27 2005 - 11:36:38 GMT