Bodvar to Andre: Static Quality is Quality too, thus the DQ/SQ (dualistic) constellation is reality's ground. The static part isn't of lesser quality than the dynamic, the two makes up the Quality Reality.
Andre: '...for pragmatic reasons...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". 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'. * Dynamic Quality is useful as a term as it allows reference to 'conceptual unknowns'(as implied by the physicist Niels Bohr)i.e quantities that are ineffable whether, for example, in the context of mystical and aesthetic experiences or in the context of wave-particles in quantum mechanics.( The Role of... McWatt, Jan. 1999, my capitals, Pirsig's bold type). Bodvar: The SOM postulates one subjective and one objective reality. It's horribly faulty and produces paradoxes galore yet you (people) swallow it by accepting it in the its language/reality form. Andre: The employment of language is, with all respect, a different issue and its limitation is not only confined to the MoQ. " As Chuang Tzu pointed out, this proclivity of language to talk about things it cannot really talk about is especially apparent in the subjects of philosophy and religion. " (The Tao of Symbols, James N. Powell) and, I hasten to add quantum mechanics/physics. (Thank you Khoo for the reference). Bodvar: Nothing about a QUALITY spawning the MOQ, something that corresponds to SOM's notion of Newton discovering a pre-existing Gravity Andre: I think it is fair to suggest that Pirsig, having gone beyond (through) the two horns discussed in ZAMM, thereby arriving at the Quality epiphany he subsequently extrapolated his metaphysical 'system' from returning to this 'immediate experience' regularly (as discussed and unfolded in Lila...'divine play'). I must add Pirsigs comment in the McWatt paper that the MoQ and Lila suffer from 'sketchiness' arguing that the 'subject is so large and so different from conventional understanding it needs more space than other systems'. Whether this is reasonable or acceptable I'll leave to you. I have made my view on this quite clear in other posts. For what it is worth. 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/
