> [Ian] > My view is pragmatic. Name a preferable metaphysics... > > [Krimel] > Taoism.
> [Ian] > Go on, Krim, I'm listening (and don't forget to consider > the downside / abuses / risks as well ...) [Krimel] Pirsig does a pretty good job with this in ZMM. I will never understand why he messes it up so in Lila. Basically the idea is that we apprehend and name the world through oppositions, white/black, big/small, ugly beautiful etc. The Way or the path of virtue is understanding the world less through opposition than through harmony. Opposites are not usually matters of either/or but of balance and proper relationship. I think one of the problems with the MoQ is Pirsig's effort at metaphysical stone cutting. He pictures this as revolving around finding the "right" first cut. Personally, since his locates his first cut about were Taoist have traditionally place emphasis I thought he had it nailed until arriving here four or five years ago. Now I see it as a mistake to regard even the static/dynamic split as essential to Taoism which metaphysically handles all oppositions. The emphasis on static and dynamic is mainly a matter of a particularly ubiquitous set of oppositions. Thing are changing or like to change or stationary and unlike to move. That sense of harmony which characterizes Lao Tsu's descriptions of The Way seems at least to be inborn and them amplified by culture. We have a sense of the world that is right for us. We sense harmonious relationships which is what I take Pirsig to be saying. That sense of harmony is like our sense of direction or our senses of time, space and probability. The biggest problem with the MoQ account of this is the idea of "betterness" which I would call "harmony". Betterness and harmony are not properties of DQ or SQ they are properties of the relationship or proportion of SQ to DQ. In is not a matter of DQ good, SQ bad. It is a matter of the balance of DQ and SQ. Pirsig plays lip service to this but even a casual stroll through the archives will reveal that it is Pirsig waxing rhapsodically about DQ that really catches on. People here seem to think the DQ is "betterness" and that it is more important than SQ. I think they are wrong on both counts. 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
