From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Dec 03 2005 - 19:55:18 GMT
Hello everyone
>From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD Two Theses in the MOQ
>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:52:50 -0000
>
>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?
Hi Paul
Do you really need anyone to tell you what Quality means?
>
>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.
Well, yes. That's why I wrote what I wrote, to clarify that issue. Glad we
can agree.
>
> >>"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.
The way I understand it, the term "neti-neti" literally means "neither this,
nor that" and there is built into the term a multidimensional context
(generally ignored in the translation) that renders the possibility of many
levels of interpretation. On one level "neti-neti" means that we are none of
us individuals; that is a grand illusion. We tend to believe our self to be
separate and apart from all otherness; that identifies us as finite beings.
"Neti-neti" points to a boundless being; the term can only be understood by
union, not in a dualistic sense, thus I can see its affiliation with the
Dynamic Quality term used in the MOQ.
Now, it seems that we often overlook the fact that a negation must also be
an affirmation of something else. So on a higher level, "neti-neti" is an
expression of the non-dual identity that has no boundaries and at the same
time it is not a negation of the physical world as it might otherwise appear
to be. Rather the term is an affirmation that we are neither separate from
the world or of the world, but both/and. I particularly like this comment:
"Those who are disunited should be united, without asking whether they are
friends." (Nâgârjuna)
>
> >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.
Okay.
>
>
>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.
Yes, I do tend to disagree with you 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.
Yes and we should remember that metaphysics itself doesn't work for
mysticism.
>
> >>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).
I tend both to agree and disagree, depending upon the context of your
statement.
>
> >>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.
Hopefully you understand that I was being a bit silly too.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
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 : Sat Dec 03 2005 - 20:41:14 GMT