[dmb said to Dan] 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.
[Krimel] There is a critical point here. I never understood Pirsig to be saying he was wielding analytical knife intent on creating a dualism. But when you throw Quality out of the MoQ, which is what you seem to be advocating, that's what you are left with. 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? [Krimel] As long as 'it' is Quality and SQ and DQ are concepts for describing 'it' there is no problem. The split that results from Pirsig's 2005 agreement with Turner breaks the MoQ into a dualism which is Quality (DQ) and not-Quality (SQ). dmb says: 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. [Krimel] Taoism is in no sense a dualism. Tao cannot be named. But we name it anyway in terms of oppositional relationships. 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
