Hi Andre, I have a comment (or two) below: On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: [Previously at MoQ discuss]> > John: > And if you can constrain yourself to one reality at a time, please, tell me > then if it's of SQ, or DQ. > > Andre: > It is both John. > [SNIP]> > Andre: > Yes,it is both, but please remember that we are discussing Pirsig's MOQ, a > static intellectual pattern of quality. Mr. Pirsig made it very clear that > you cannot build a metaphysics consisting of just one word. He turned to > static patterns to explain what he was saying because these are stable. > These patterns of quality he used...these patterns of order, preserve his > metaphysics. > [Mark] I am not sure if preserve is the correct term here. The way I see it, is that Pirsig divided up Quality into the static and dynamic domains for rhetorical purposes. That is, he was trying to express how he saw the world, and chose this division as an appropriate analogy with which to present it. Basically it is a division between some constancy and some change. The division is artificial since both are Quality, and is simply a treatment for discursive reasons. With his division, Pirsig is able to convey the difference between change, and what the change is acting on. In this way they are very different concepts. It would be like discussing the continents and plate tectonics. Obviously the two are not the same.
I don't think we attribute the concept of static quality to Pirsig's analogy. As written in the title, this is "an inquiry into morals". As such, it is the presentation of a questioning of the nature of morals. If the intent was to present a static metaphysics in its complete form, he would have called it the Metaphysics of Quality, but he did not. Now, when making an inquiry we are looking for clues. Pirsig presents many of these clues, but never concedes that the investigation is over (unless I missed something). As such, it is an open area of inquiry. The intent of the book was to be thought provoking much in the same way ZMM was. When thoughts are provoked, things happen dynamically, and it doesn't make sense to look back to see if such thoughts were provoked correctly. Certainly Lila can serve as a guide for many, but strict adherence to the words was not the intent of this philosophical musing, in my opinion. An Inquiry is a questioning, not a manifesto. This forum provides the platform for further questioning along the same lines as presented. Cheers, Mark > > 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 > 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
