Ron and all As long as Mon in Monism stand for One as in Mono vs Stereo sound and Quality is different from SOM then Quality should be a Monism and SOM be regarded as some sort of Dilemma.
If you've read my book you'd know that there is a way to connect a dichotomy like Classic-Romantic, DQ/SQ and the four aspects of Thermodynamics into One dynamic monistic act of balance. Even One or One-ness, physically or just as concept, as a static pattern or example of balancing act between None, Two or Else, will sooner or later come into question and finally change in some way. Marsha knows that. But until then, it is as it is. Jan Anders 4 jul 2012 kl. 02:24 skrev X Acto <[email protected]>: > > > > > ________________________________ > 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 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
