Andre, I agree completely that DQ is sq, is a wrong statement. For one thing, sq is completely subjective and DQ is not.
> > Andre: > > This does however NOT equate to 'DQ is not other than sq', put more simply: > 'DQ is sq', which is what you maintain! > > As Horse, Adrie, David and others have pointed out, you cannot state that > the differentiated is the same as the undifferentiated. The conceptualized > is the same as the unconceptualized. This makes a farce of the evolutionary > program called MOQ which is a static intellectual pattern of value. > > John: Again, I agree. Although I'm not so certain that this that you accuse, is what Marsha (or I for that matter) have been doing. I'd say they are night and day. DQ is a fact, and sq is an illusion. However, its illusions are the means by how we live, and thus it's not a bad illusion, it's a good one. Does that make sense? Andre: > 'In the MOQ, then, [and this is, after all, what we are discussing > here]reality (as a whole) is denoted by the term 'Quality' which Pirsig > divides into Dynamic Quality and static quality. Quality (with a capital > 'Q')is used to denote reality (by which Pirsig regards as the totality of > what exists) in addition to its traditional context as a term for > excellence... while Dynamic Quality denotes the unconceptualised part of > reality. Consequently, the term 'Dynamic Quality' is not meant to be a > concept but a referring term: > > John: Well, other than the part that gives me a headache with all your "reality" definitions... I'm struggling with the functional difference between "concept" and "referent (or referring) term" cuz me? That's what I use all conceptualization for - terms that refer to something. But then, I think Good is a noun, too, so maybe we just aren't on the same page at all. Andre: > It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are > always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll overrun it and try > to present it as some kind of a concept itself. (Pirsig, 1997e) > > [Note:this is the danger of your perspective/conflation Marsha!] > > John (shaking his weary head): "And this is the kind of crap that inspired logical positivism". Her "dangerous conflation" is all-pervasive in all communication. I mean, it's the inevitable sq of existence that can't be escaped, so to blame her for it or warn her away from it seems at least as ridiculous as any ubiquitous charge of reification. The trick, I think, is to accept a variety of conceptualization of DQ, and not insist upon any one dogmatic, exclusive formulation. But to avoid conceptualization at all is impossible and not really what we need. That's for suckers who retreat from life and sit on a floor contemplating their navels and trying to become all with the nothing. I personally don't call that the pursuit of Quality. Andre: See below: > > "This comments reflects Pirsig's concern that a shift from considering the > Good as an ineffable 'unconditioned' to a Platonic idea would entail leaving > it open to a metaphysical devaluation. This type of devaluation is located > by Pirsig (1974a, p 380) with Aristotle's development of dialectics... > 'Once the Good has been contained as a dialectical idea it is no trouble > for any philosopher to come along and show by dialectical methods that > arete, the Good, can be more advantageously demoted to a lower position > within a 'true' order of things, more compatible with the inner workings of > dialectic. Such a philosopher was not long in coming. His name was > Aristotle. > John: Well it seems to me, that this opinion has been revisited and revised. But hey, I'm no expert. I'm just an almost-truck driver, is all. Andre: > 'Once such a process occurs, mind or matter is usually returned as > ontologically fundamental instead of the Good and, as such, a metaphysics > ceases to be a 'metaphysics of quality' but becomes a form of SOM' > (Anthony's Phd, pp34-5). > > John: I think the key point is in the "differentiated", Andre. "sq is differentiated DQ" puts a lot of emphasis upon the process of differentiation. That's where the rubber meets the road. That's your Quality event, right there and that's the evidentiary co-dependent arising. Sorry to butt in, back to your regularly scheduled arguments... 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
