Andrè On 31 Jan.
> Bodvar, my reading and understanding of both books ( i.e ZMM and Lila) > is that the latter is a further working out of the former. ZMM lay the > basis of undefined Quality as Reality. Lila became the working out of > this basis through thinking, progression,more thinking, refinement, > more thinking, evolution, more thinking etc,of the metaphysical > framework within which to place this. Yes, but "Quality=Reality" is a "monism" and those are barren. As Pirsig demonstrates himself a dualism was soon needed and this necessarily is the DQ/SQ where the first part is the original Quality spawning the static levels. For people steeped in SOM it may look obvious that the MOQ is a theoretical split of the real Quality "out there", but what good is it if the MOQ is to perpetuate SOM? In the non-SOM MOQ there is no real/theoretical distinction (this is the 4th. level's value) the DQ/SQ split has taken over from the S/O split. Still with me? > Your issue with the boxes refers to the diagram Phaedrus gave to his > colleagues and superiors in his teaching days who tried to nail him > down on where this 'Quality'' was to be found. I also read into it a > sort of justification ,on Phaedrus' behalf, of his (strange) teaching > methods ... (you know the story well I am sure). I see it as a sort of > working paper. Also remember that Phaedrus was probably not even > aware, at that time, of the full implications of what he was claiming. This I agree with, but I can't get why the later Pirsig did not hark back to ZAMM and explained how it is to be understood from the back-light of the full-fledged MOQ. > On to Lila, where after years of thinking and refinement he reaches > for the knife and starts cutting: 'DQ/SQ became the basic division of > his emerging MoQ...not subject and object but static and Dynamic is > the basic division of reality' (Lila p 119). ( NOT reality and then > DQ/SQ, there never was any sub-set!) OK as said to DMB if the original Quality is seen as =DQ and this spawning the static levels. Fine! But it is as if Pirsig subscribes to SOM with Quality objectively "out there" and the DQ/SQ some theoretical word-play inside the subjective language realm. This is my eternal complaint. > Pirsig has repeated this in his SODV paper (p12, fig 4). There is no > hint left of the diagram in ZMM but a more refined, carefully thought > through division of reality represented in diagram form exactly as he > stated it in Lila years before. I don't have the said paper here, but if my memory serves me he claims that DQ is not confined to the paper but stretches to the end of the universe and this - again - is the same futile effort to separate a theoretical (subjective) presentation from an objective reality "out there". SOM tentacles pulling us (even Pirsig) back. > So, I am a little mystified as to the harm done. What harm has been > done and who did it? Very short, the harm is that the MOQ doesn't make it out of SOM. Pirsig says that Quality is dynamic and the MOQ is static, but it's plain that here dynamic=objective and static=subjective. To turn Phaedrus most apt Newton Gravity argument (ZAMM) against him "Where was Quality before Pirsig"? The MOQ is the Quality Reality!!!!!!!!!! IMO 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/
