Ham to Steve: The fact is that neither you nor Pirsig wants to confront metaphysics head-on. Oh, you talk around it, and you call the MoQ a "metaphysics", but the Quality paradigm you debate does not account for a metaphysical source at all. It doesn't even define Quality as the fundamental reality.
Andre: Phaedrus in ZMM: 'His Quality was a metaphysical entity, not a mystic one. Or was it? What was the difference? He answered himself that the difference was one of definition. Metaphysical entities are defined, Mystical Ones are not. That made Quality mystical. No. It was really both. Although he'd thought of it purely in philosophical terms up to now as metaphysical, he had all along refused to define it. That made it mystic too. Its indefinability freed it from the rules of metaphysics'. (p 203 of my e-copy) I sense a derogatory tone there Ham towards the MOQ and a rat. And I know how you love to define things(and have things defined) and using logic to make sense of experience. Well, if your Essence is such a rewarding experiential process for you (which it obviously isn't...otherwise you wouldn't be hanging around here)maybe it is time to change your assumptions upon which you base the validity of your definitions and use of logic....and perhaps your essence. Ham: What comes into being and appears to have value is a creation that presupposes a Creator. Andre: Just found the rat. 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/md/archives.html
