[Bo] I don't see any problem with Quality being DQ, it removes the platypus of a Quality outside the MOQ something that perpetuates the somish (Kantian) problem of an ineffable reality that we make up theories about, only now the said reality is called Quality.
[Krimel] There is no platypus here. This is what the MoQ says. There is an undefined reality that we make up stories about. [Bo] The DQ/SQ configuration is the primary axiom , your enigma: ".... how can DQ and Quality be the same thing?..." stems from the infamous box diagrams that makes the divided entity remain unscathed behind, it may work for motorcycles, but not for reality. [Krimel] Maybe the box diagrams are not as famous as you think. I have no clue what you are talking about here. DQ/SQ is a split that divides Quality. Quality can be recognized as forms in stasis or forms in flux. It's pretty simple. [Bo] Your next quandary: "What is Quality in LILA if the Quality of ZMM is the DQ of LILA?" The Quality of ZAMM gave rise to subjects and objects (SOM) that became the "Classic" (subtitled "intellect") part of that moq (no "classic" levels. So you see had this "intellect" been carried over into the final MOQ all would have been fine, ZMM and LILA would have been harmonized, as it is the are worlds apart. [Krimel] The Quality in ZMM is the Tao. The Quality in Lila is the Tao. The Tao is a metaphysical principle that recognizes and reconciles opposites. It is a monism that defuses dualisms. DQ/SQ and S/O are both dualisms that can be resolved by the Tao. All Pirsig is saying is that DQ/SQ is a more fundamental dualism than S/O. Lao Tsu does not mention Yin and Yang but they arose early on as the fundamental set of opposites. They are they active and passive principles. Just as Quality is a mediocre term for Tao. DQ and SQ are mediocre terms for Yin and Yang. They highlight certain aspects, which is good but because they are poorly understood other important aspects are neglected. Mostly this is the result of our pathological need to define things and to latch onto the illusion of definition. [Bo] I also had a hunch that Pirsig had said so - something I credited him for - but it's not in the Paul Turner letter I constantly refer to, could you be more specific and provide the actual quote? [Krimel] The quote offered by Paul is: "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] This was part of a fairly detailed post on the subject between Paul and Dan: http://www.moqtalk.org/archivedata/moq_discuss/2002%20-%202005/18485.html [Bo] I don't quite get your point, the fact that reality's (=Quality's) dynamic component is part of the MOQ can't by no twist of logic be a "definition" and thus an desecration. I used the example of religions that postulate a God/World split, but God is still as sacred. Yet, it struck me just now, this may have wider ramifications. The pious thinks that God is from before "religion", is it the same piety that surfaces as a demand about a Quality from before the MOQ? [Krimel] See you can't resist putting an equal sign on one side or the other of Quality. When you do that you miss the point. DQ on the other hand is a descriptor of Quality. Change, flux, activity and the dynamic are some of the fundamental characteristic of Quality that we perceive. DQ can be identified, specified and quantified rather like forces in physics. I don't know what religion you are talking about but in the west the God/World split goes something like this. God creates the world. He is eminent in the world that is he is infused into the world but he is transcendent in that he is beyond the world. Sacred has nothing to do with this. A rock can be sacred. But Quality or the Tao is not God and it is not the world. 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/
