From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Wed Nov 30 2005 - 10:52:50 GMT
Dan,
>Thank you for sharing the quote. The first sentence seems to confirm what
>you're saying, yes. But I see a problem with the second sentence if a
>person
>were to insist on using it in the same context. If Quality covers both
>Dynamic Quality and static quality, then how can Quality and Dynamic
>Quality
>be the same? Can something be part of itself?
Paul: This highlights the equivocation I'm trying to avoid. In ZMM,
Quality = Dynamic Quality. In LILA, Quality = Dynamic Quality + static
quality. So when someone just says "Quality" what do they mean?
In your question above, the first time you use Quality you are using it in a
way that is only true in the LILA sense, and the second time you use it in a
way that is only true in the ZMM sense, hence the confusion.
>>"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]
>
>It's tempting to describe Dynamic Quality and in front of a certain
>audience
>one might even get away with it; I think it best to say that Dynamic
>Quality
>is "not this, not that" even though we are constantly defining it.
Paul: The Upanishadic "neti, neti" is a response from the paramartha-satya
perspective to prevent over-emphasis on samvrti-satya. Whilst this is kept
in mind, all of the descriptions of DQ in ZMM and LILA are nevertheless part
of samvrti-satya and this is the perspective I'm writing from.
>In ZMM Quality is divided into Romantic and Classical. In LILA Quality is
>divided into Dynamic Quality and static quality. So again, how can Quality
>and Dynamic Quality be the same?
Paul: Regarding romantic/classic I think we have to accept Pirsig's
admission that it was a "lousy opening" and forget about it. As I said, I'm
extracting material from ZMM for a coherent philosophical thesis which is
carried on in LILA; I'm not trying to merge the two texts in their entirety.
To repeat, whilst it may not hold for every single sentence, it is my claim
that Quality *as it is used in ZMM* is the Dynamic Quality *of LILA* (after
Chapter 9). So, from this translation it follows that the "Quality" of LILA
is actually an *expansion* of the "Quality" in ZMM and includes static
quality which is not in ZMM at all - the closest to it are the "analogues."
You use "Quality" as if it is used the same in both books. That's where the
confusion comes from, I think. That said, it seems that most people
disagree with me on this.
>>"Dynamic Quality is the preintellectual cutting edge of reality, the
>source
>>of all things..." [LILA, p133]
>
>"Romantic Quality is the cutting edge of experience." (ZMM page 254) Why
>wouldn't it be better to equate (if we must) Romantic Quality with Dynamic
>Quality?
Paul: Because he realised that "Romantic Quality" doesn't work for
mysticism and so the division was abandoned.
>>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.
>
>And my point is that the MOQ didn't exist when ZMM was written so there is
>no need to translate the terms.
Paul: Fair enough. I think a very important part of the MOQ is laid out in
ZMM, hence its inclusion in my thesis (1).
>>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.
>
>I've gone and upset you again I can tell. I didn't mean to imply that you
>were riddled with self importance. Still, don't we have to be attentive to
>Dynamic Quality to know "it"?
Paul: I know, I was being light-hearted. I should have put a smiley in. I
would say that, as static patterns begin to dominate perception, we have to
be more attentive to DQ to "know it," yes.
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 : Wed Nov 30 2005 - 11:03:07 GMT