________________________________
Subject: Re: [MD] Is Quality a monism?
Ron to Andre B, July 1st 2012:
> Thats a great philosophical question Andre, "how do you know
> unity,oneness,whole?"
> you said we know them statically, which feels like the right direction.
> Quality then is the
> primary explanitory factor in our philosophical theories? and in this way we
> can say that
> Quality is one because it is the basis and begining?on which all explanation
> extends.
> But That is probably the only way I'd say that Quality is "one".
Ant McWatt comments:
I think Ron has an interesting take on how the MOQ can be considered monistic
but (as he specifically asked for my opinion!!!) I think Pirsig would hold that
the MOQ goes further than just being the "primary explanatory factor in our
philosophical theories". He is asserting (IMHO) that Quality comprises the
whole universe. Remember the "every last bit of it" comment in Chapter 20 of
ZMM? This assertion is confirmed by later correspondence with Pirsig whether
that's with myself or other people.
Ron responds:
I think it goes further by what it points to, certainly, I also think that
Quality composing the whole universe
is a high quality idea.
As your comment to Dan suggest the direction I am approaching the idea of
Quality being "one" I will
repost the quote:
Ant to Dan:
"It appears you are conflating literal nothingness with no-thingness in this
last sentence. From a "Dynamic
Quality perspective", there is no equality or... inequality. "
Ron continues:
I would add that "one" be added to equality/inequality, for to be "one" is to
be a definite something.
I believe this brings us back to the discussion of first form.
Quality may be considered a unity as to be "one" can mean to be continuous
It can be a unity as a basis of explanation. A term which requires no other
terms to explain it, but it
explains all others.
Quality may be a unity in that it is dynamically indivisable and without change
yet to be "one" means
to have a kind of sameness and this is where the discussion gets really
interesting.
Ant continues:
I think if the MOQ had started (metaphysically) as some sort of dualist
"Quality world/non-Quality world" then it would have just returned us to a
version of the old SOM mind-matter problem that is laid out in LILA. For
example, how would these two realms interact with each other? Also, if you
value having a value-free realm, won't you be contradicting yourself?!
On a related note, for a good understanding of how Quality exists as two basic
types (the Dynamic and static), I would recommend that you read Paul Turner's
"Notes on the Tetralemma"
Ron comments:
Once the idea of "one" is used as a primary explanitory factor it immediatly
introduces "not one"
which the teralemma addresses in all it's variations of explanation and what it
does not adequately
explain is the beautiful and the Good. If we combine them as the Platonists
did, and equivocate
unity with the Good and the true and the many with plural and the false or
illusonary, we have the
truth/appearence in the form of the Dynamic/Static explanation. That is why I
think we must be
careful with what we mean when we say that "Quality is one". We can
Pragmatically avoid alot of
false philosophical problems if we avoid associating Quality with unity. Willie
James had some good
reasons why not to also.
Cheers
And thnx for entertaining my questions.
..
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
