Bodvar says:

Dearest Andr?,
You were shocked by my "accusation" that this from Pirsig's
Summary. "The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be
separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about."
..is SOM in a Q-disguise. I regret that, but it's complete nonsense.
Quality is part and parcel of the MOQ.

Andre:
Well, Bodvar, not shocked but taken aback a bit. At the end of this post you
suggest not to use anymore sophistry but let me put this to you;

Quality is NOT part and parcel of the MoQ. The MOQ is part and parcel of
Quality.
As Pirsig says: 'To have something is to possess it, and to possess
something is to dominate it. Nothing dominates Quality. If there's
domination and possession involved, it's Quality that dominates and
possesses (the MoQ). (Lila p 142, my substitution).

I am not sure what ramifications this has for the MoQ but do understand that
Quality cannot be 'contained' within a metaphysical system.
(Can someone help my out here please?)

Bodvar in Issue 152:

'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.

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!!!!!!!!!!'.

Andre:

This shocked me more Bodvar.
Quality cannot be defined.Pirsig has stated this over and over again. He was
reluctant to write a metaphysics (remember?) because people would object and
haggle about this and disagree about that.
Anyway, he was left with concepts and metaphor ( yes, using language) to
convey, to communicate what he was getting at.
To cite the Role of Evolution..paper again:

'Though there are no objects or subjects as traditionally thought of within
the MOQ, for pragmatic reasons (i.e. it makes human existence much easier by
employing concepts) Pirsig terms the continually changing flux of immediate
reality "Dynamic Quality" while any concept abstracted from this flux is
termed a pattern of "static quality"
[*15<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=mjs&ver=JP3Bof4k2fw&am=R-AwhcT3cCKZRf3iwfb7_Q_T#Ref_15>
*]. It is important to keep in mind that "Dynamic Quality" is not a concept
but only a referring term for immediate experience i.e.

*"The purpose of the description of 'Dynamic Quality' as 'the continually
changing flux of immediate reality' is to block the notion that Dynamic
Quality is some kind of object. To try to take that definition as some kind
of philosophic object itself is to pervert the purpose for which the
statement was intended."
[**16<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=mjs&ver=JP3Bof4k2fw&am=R-AwhcT3cCKZRf3iwfb7_Q_T#Ref_16>
**]*

DQ is a 'referring term' not to some objective reality 'out there' but to
the flux ...Quality, WHICH HAS US and not the other way around.

My shock came when you argued that, by implication, Pirsig again
postulates the 'theoretical' (MoQ) 'subjective' against an 'objective',
'concrete' reality (Quality) 'out there'. And your conclusion then, that the
MoQ doesn't make it out of SOM.

But he doesn't. There are no subjects and objects'

Now, I stand corrected, but your interpretation is confusing me.

But if you persist/insist Bodvar, please explain what the MoQ needs to do to
get out of the tentacles of SOM. PLEASE!!!

As for the cryptic gravity/quality question..point taken:

*In the past there was no MoQ.*

*At present, there is the MoQ (an improvement on SOM)*

*In the future, the MoQ will be replaced or evolve into a better system.*

IMHO.

Andre
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/

Reply via email to