Ron asks: Is Quality a Monism? firstly, it should be clear we are speaking of static quality and when we are speaking of monads we are speaking about unity, oneness, whole.
Andre: Hi Ron, I shall never pretend to be Antony but will give you my take on this. Yes, Quality is a monism. That is the contradiction Pirsig is talking about in LILA (DQ/sq). You shouldn't really do the separating (DQ/sq) but Pirsig's strength, brilliance and audacity convinced him that that really is the way to go philosophically/metaphisically. Especially considering the blending and continuation Pirsig accomplished of mainstream american philosophical traditon. If he hadn't have done that people would have seen it as an abberation, a twisted mangle of eastern and western philosophical opportunism which would have left ZMM and LILA in a 'cultus' status they do not deserve and, I am convinced, are saved from. ( Mark and Marsha are in this swing and that is ultimately very denigrading to Pirsig's MoQ). Ron: It tends to lend to the idea of completeness. Andre: It seems to me that DQ (on its own) is not, as you suggest unity, oneness, whole. Sq is, for the same reason not unity, oneness, whole. No, both are (Dq/sq). The simple reasoning being: how do you know unity, oneness, whole? They are static conceptions...and how are you aware of DQ except from a static point of view? What I find fault with the Marks and Marshas is that when you use THEIR reasoning all you get is daisies and wanks...DQ/sq...(what's the difference?)...and then certainly we should not use words...all is adjectives anyway... that is the quickest way to absolutely destroy yourself:nihilism (a la Mark). This is the anti-intellectual trend Marsha and Mark are examples of. It is bad. To just continue Ron, for a small bit...in this conventional, static world the 'idea of completeness" shall remain an idea. All is provisional and shall..in time and space...remain representations (sq). Ron: I think, though, that the value can be improved if the dualism implied by knowledge-of-some-thing is understood and remains as hypothetical. The MoQ is afterall a monism (with Quality the source of all that exists.)? At its highest, static (patterned) quality? may represent the best value availab Andre: Ron, I am not convinced that the MoQ deals in 'hypotheticals'. Are you suggesting (a la Marsha) that static patterns of quality should be treated as hypotheticals? (for fuck's sake, Marsha doesn't even acknowledege sq!!!) Okay, lets kep it nice. Pirsig suggests 'provisional' which, to me suggests a better daisy than 'hypothetical'(Marsha). Provisional is pragmatically grounded. Hypothetical is theothetically grounded. I like to believe I am living DQ/sq and not, as Marsha and Mark suggest sq. Good to hear from you Ron. Let me know what you think...and hoping for a respons from Anthony. ps: I will not appreciate a response from either of those two because they are twittering a non Pirsig MoQ. I do not know what they are doing here.
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
