dmb said to Dan:
This [deleted] quote from chapter 9 of Lila explains, I think, that any number
of dualism can be produced by using the analytic knife. That's what I mean by
"pairs of opposites". Any intellectual distinction will produce paired terms
that define each other, the way "up" means "not down" or "cold" means "not hot".
Dan replied:
I think this is the source of my discomfort: pairs of opposites define each
other. So if we take Dynamic and static as pairs of opposites, we can define
each by the other, right? And Dynamic Quality defined is static quality. But
static quality defined is not Dynamic Quality.
dmb says:
Yes, there is always a paradox lurking in this particular dualism. But it's not
really that much of a trick. DQ is just paradoxically defined as undefinable.
The DQ/sq dualism is basically a distinction between definable and undefinable,
between concepts and the primary empirical reality, between verbal descriptions
and pre-verbal experience.
Dan:
So you're saying Dynamic Quality and static quality are intellectual
distinctions, divided pairs of opposites in a metaphysical system, contrasted
with undivided Quality. That sounds right. But doesn't Robert Pirsig say that
Dynamic Quality in LILA refers to the Quality of ZMM? I thought I read that
somewhere. If so, how can Dynamic Quality and static quality be contrasted with
itself (undivided quality)?
dmb says:
The distinctions between different kinds of quality are all intellectual of
course, not just the difference between static and dynamic but also the various
kinds of static quality and the varieties within each kind. We can talk about
Quality as a whole, which makes the MOQ a monism, the DQ/sq split makes it a
dualism and when we add talk about the levels the MOQ is a form of pluralism.
The switch from Quality in ZAMM to DQ in Lila, however, is more a result of
giving up the the classic-romantic split. Pirsig realized later, I think, that
those two labels designate different thought styles but they are still both
intellectual. DQ is defined as pre-intellectual, regardless of of any
particular intellectual style.
Dan:
Looking at 'it' as a term synonomous with experience, Dynamic Quality is both
undefined and infinitely defined. The question is: where does the
Dynamic/static distinction belong? I would say, since Dynamic Quality is
pre-intellellectual in nature, the distinction belongs at the moment of
intellectualization. How does that count as a pair of opposites, though?
dmb says:
Yes, I think that's exactly right. In terms of where the difference shows up in
experience, the distinction belongs at the moment of intellectualization. Not
that we notice this moment or that we are consciously aware of the
pre-intellectual experience that precedes it. These two factors interact back
and forth constantly. But the original statement about DQ and sq counting as a
pair of opposites referred to the action of Pirsig's analytic knife, to the
structure of the MOQ as compared with Yin-Yang dualism of Taoism. I mean, DQ/sq
counts as a dualism within an intellectual framework wherein definitions are
required. Granted, DQ is paradoxically defined as undefinable and as not a
metaphysical chess piece. But it's like the man said, you can't have a
metaphysics that consists of just one word. And you need a catechism to throw
at guys like Dick Rigel.
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
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
