Krimel said to Andre: The disservice I am referring to specifically is the claim that the Quality of ZMM is called DQ in Lila. There are two ways to understand this. The first and the one I think Pirsig and dmb use, is that DQ IS Quality. As a result there is no Quality in the Metaphysics of Quality only DQ and SQ. Aside from being awkward; it turns the MoQ into a form of dualism which I believe Pirsig would specifically like to reject.
dmb says: The claim that the Quality of ZAMM is called DQ in Lila is only a change in the terms, not the meaning. Which is to say you can compare statements from ZAMM to statements in Lila and see that he talking about the same thing. For example, in Lila he says DQ is "the pre-intellectual cutting-edge of reality, the source of all things, completely simple and always new... It contains no pattern of fixed rewards and punishments". (Thanks for that quote, Andre.) [snip additional quote] I think its fairly obvious that Quality here is dynamic and Plato's fixed ideas are static. In ZAMM he's not using those terms yet, but the difference between "ever changing" reality itself and the "fixed ideas" of Plato is a description the difference between dynamic and static. See? [Krimel] Right, Quality is percept, Plato is concept. Ever changing reality and fixed ideas! [dmb] The same difference can be seen in the moving train analogy and in the distinction between classic and romantic, although the latter didn't work very well and had to be dropped. [Krimel] Or as I like to think, it was left to stand on its own merit. [dmb] I mean, Lila only clarifies what he was already saying in ZAMM. As I understand these terms, this is all fairly obvious. [Krimel] Right and he incorporate Taoism's first cut... [dmb] Like James, he's talking about the "discrepancy between concepts and reality", about the difference between "conceptual categories" and "the immediate flux of life". [Krimel] I agree with this as I outlined earlier today. Those difference can be understood in static and dynamic terms. [dmb] When all these terms are understood properly, it becomes clear that this distinction runs throughout both books. [Krimel] Right, and again I just think that the proper understanding is that static and dynamic are statements about relative probability or degrees of certainty; Yin and Yang. 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/
