Hi dmb, > David H said to Andre: > Is a 'referring term' not a definition? I think to some degree that it is. > ...But how can you even talk of DQ without referring to it? You can't do it. > From the perspective of sq, even the words Dynamic Quality are a sort of > definition. The term is a static and defined thing. And this, being static, > is of course, not DQ. Remember the Laws of Gravity in ZMM? Similarly, Dynamic > Quality didn't exist until Pirsig defined it by giving it a name. > > dmb says: > David Granger (so many Daves, so little time) says that DQ is not a concept > but the center point around which a lot of conceptual furniture is arranged. > The MOQ is that arrangement of concepts. It's an intellectual structure > built around DQ and in relation to DQ. > > I think the laws of gravity cannot rightly be compared to DQ. The former is > very precisely defined and it's so static that common sense takes it as an > eternal feature of the universe. Also, I think it's important to remember > that Pirsig isn't claiming to say anything new about DQ. He finds that Taoism > already expresses it quite beautifully, the Zen Buddhists already get it and > he even says that these ideas are nothing new and in fact it is the oldest > idea known to man. He says he didn't do a damn thing for Quality. DQ is just > fine without help from Pirsig but what he's offering is a expansion of > rationality. That's the MOQ. Value-free science has got to go. The pretense > of objectivity has got to go. The terrible secret loneliness, the relativism, > the nihilism, the spiritual emptiness and aesthetic hollowness are all > symptoms of this objective attitude. Pirsig says they all have to get out of > town by noon. He wants to put DQ at the center of our thinking. He want to > show us ho > w intellect itself can be improved if we add undefined Quality and otherwise > knock the squareness out of it. He wants to show us that thought itself is > (or should be) a form of art. Excellence in thought and speech not just good > for its own sake but it should serve undefined betterness too.
Yep. That's right. However, what I'm saying is that Dynamic Quality with its place within the Metaphysical structure of the MOQ didn't exist until Pirsig wrote about it. In other words, from a static perspective - Dynamic Quality didn't exist until Pirsig wrote about it. But from a Dynamic understanding Dynamic Quality always has existed and is the source of all things. > To the extent that one ignores these static intellectual arrangements, or > even de-emphasizes them in favor of the ineffable, I think one (Marsha) has > missed the main point of the MOQ. I mean, intellectual quality is the whole > game here. By virtue of it's central undefined term the MOQ shares a view > common among philosophical mystics (both East and West), but the MOQ aims to > expand rationality at its roots. It's all about the improvement of static > intellectual quality. Those who pretend that static intellectual quality is > the enemy, I think, have it all wrong. It's hard to understand why anyone > with that attitude would join a discussion group in the first place. Yep. But she's the mystical Lila who's here to show us stodgy men what's what... -David. 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
