Arlo, All. On 17 April you wrote: (to Ian)
> You see the "problem", of course. Any system that "divides" the cosmos > can't be contained within any of its divisions. By definition, it is > above those divisions. Agree! . > Pirsig mentions this in ZMM. "Quality is the continuing stimulus which > our environment puts upon us to create the world in which we live. All > of it. Every last bit of it. ... Now, to take that which has caused us > to create the world, and include it within the world we have created, > is clearly impossible. That is why Quality cannot be defined. If we do > define it we are defining something less than Quality itself." (ZMM) I can only repeat that DQ is part of the MOQ system. The above is Phaedrus first "trinity" insight that of subjects and objects as subsets of Quality, something that developed into the Romantic/ Classic moq where the Classic part was the subject/object split, subtitled "intellect". Now, the romantic/classic pair didn't become final, but its likeness with the dynamic/static one is obvious. However, the source of "the Quality outside the MOQ" notion is the top box of the diagram that makes it look as if (a) Quality remans behind after the first split. It's like religion would postulate a God/World split, yet keeping (a) God outside this dualism. BTW the same box diagram makes it look as if (a) Reality iremains behind after the S/O split. See below. > And let me be clear, I don't think this is just Pirsig's MOQ, but > applies to the nature of all metaphysical inquiries. Pirsig says as > much in LILA. "There already is a metaphysics of Quality. A > subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first > division of Quality - the first slice of undivided experience is > into subjects and objects." In this sense, I'd argue, "metaphysics of > Quality" is redundant. There is Quality. And there are Metaphysical > descriptions of that Quality. We more or less look past this > redundancy due to Pirsig's particular use of the word "Quality", and > maybe that's part of the confusion. SOM does not "say" that it is a subject/object ordering of anything, SOM is the very S/O split and this gave it its metaphysical power. The same must be done by the MOQ for it to take effect. The final break with SOM is to strip it of its metaphysical rank and relegate it the role of MOQ's 4th. level. That way Pirsig's about the S/O being a division of Quality, becomes true. One last thing: We know how SOM evolved up through the centuries, Descartes was a milestone, but in ZMM Pirsig refers to Immanuel Kant and he is SOM's final word: An ineffable yet objective (An Sich) reality that we make up subjective,(Für Uns) theories about, and we see the uncanny likeness with orthodox MOQ: Quality as an indefinable reality with the MOQ a mere theory. Bo Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
