Hi Andre, Thank you for your response, since it gives me someplace to start. However, I am rather dumbfounded on where to begin. This may just be a language barrier, so do not feel insulted if I start with some very basic concepts.
Metaphysics of Quality is a presentation of Quality in metaphysical terms. What is metaphysics? Well that definition can be found easily all over the place. Since we like Wiki, I will use the first statement therein: "Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world (Wiki)", it of course goes on. So that is metaphysics, it is a manner of explanation. So, what is MoQ explaining? It is explaining Quality. What is Quality? Well Pirsig brings in the concept of Quality into the literature with ZAMM. He then goes on to provide a deeper presentation of Quality in Lila. Therefore MoQ is a metaphysical description of what he means by Quality. If you have a problem with this, then please let me know what it is. I will now go on to your post below. On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Mark said to Anyone: > > As we know we are discussing a description of Quality which Pirsig brought to > our attention almost 40 years ago. > > As a description of Quality using metaphysical tools, there are certain > principles that guide such metaphysics. > > Andre: > I hate to break this to you Mark but neither ZMM nor LILA is a 'description > of Quality'. I'd like to know where you find that Pirsig DESCRIBES Quality. Mark: I think I explained this above, but to reiterate, MoQ is the Metaphysics OF Quality. We can speak of the metaphysics of Buddhism, or the metaphysics of Christian mysticism, or the metaphysics of Alchemy. All of these are the metaphysics of something. Pirsig presents a metaphysics of Quality. That is, he is describing Quality in metaphysical terms. He does this by way of example, and does not choose epistemology. This is not uncommon, and James does the same thing with Pragmatism. Pragmatism is a tool in philosophy and can also be considered a branch of philosophy itself. So I would say that Lila is a description of Quality in metaphysical terms. Please be aware that any description of such a vast body (that would be everything that is) is never complete, and can often misdirect the reader. Pirsig cautions all of us with that. All of the major religions also provide that caution (although it is not followed by many who put statues on their walls). > > Mark: > I am not sure what you think I have upside down, since you do not say. I am > not sure if I am supposed to guess what these are. Perhaps you can present > what you mean. Maybe a paragraph on Pirsig's MoQ from you would be helpful. > > Mark: > You are dodging Mark. I was responding directly to your statement that ideas > come before DQ. This is like saying that Newton wrote his Law of Gravity at > his writing desk...then went out for a snooze in his garden where an apple > fell on his head which, of course woke him from his slumbers after which he > exclaims: 'See, that's gravity!' Mark: This is the whole principle behind the Ghost of Reason that Pirsig spends some time on. Yes, Newton wrote down the law of gravity at his desk, and then the concept of gravity in Newtonian terms was born. Before that such "gravity" did not exist. What this means is that gravity was not thought of in those terms. The laws of gravity are concepts. We invent them. His laws were arrived at through experimentation and modeling with math. That is the way physics works. To get even more fundamental, we can say that he created the laws of gravity like a painter paints a picture. Surely you will not say that the painting existed before the painter painted it. Although there are some who will argue this in interesting ways by saying that the painting was simply revealed by the painter but was there all along. I do not have a problem with this form of argument, but it is not the one Pirsig is making. Pirsig is referring to static quality being a ghost. > > Or, where Archimedes runs naked through the streets exclaiming 'Eureka, > eureka' and then, on recommendation of his fellow citizens takes a much > needed bath and says: 'See!'. Archimedes realized that the volume of an object could be determined by the water it displaced. This solve a problem such as: when a fish is put into the water, does it become part of the water? Of course the question was proposed by those who think way too much about these things. But Archimedes discovered a method of measurement, and no, the fish does not become part of the water, in fact water has to move out of the way to make room for the fish. > > You have it upside down, arse about, reverse order. First you have DQ then > you get the ideas. This was in reference to David's suggestion for you to > re-evaluate your statement and he quoted Pirsig: > > A direct quote from Lila: > > "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source > of all things, completely simple and always new." > > Comprendo? Mark: DQ is something we make up to explain reality. It is a concept, just like God is. It is used to explain Quality. One cannot rightly say that the concept created itself. The rhetoric used by Pirsig is meant to convey how he sees DQ. However, he is projecting this from the static world. Pirsig understands this since he understands the ghost of reason. He is presenting rhetoric, not some fundamental truth. This is why MoQ is better at solving some of the problems of Western Philosophy. It does not pretend to be conveying truths, only the best explanations. Of course what is best depends on the reader. DQ lives in our heads. Comprende? > > Mark: > Well Andre, perhaps you should stop dancing then and put down some philosophy > in this forum. How about it, Chum? Stop all this cheerleading and give us > some thoughts on Quality. > > Andre: > You are incorrigible most times Mark. Marsha made the suggestion of your > 'intellectual jumps and heel-clicks' as she termed it. I agreed with her and > keep on agreeing with her that it is very annoying. > > You keep on wanting 'thoughts on Quality'. You think the MoQ is one > 'description' of Quality. Jeez man, what is there to say about Quality? A > 'nothingness within which there is great working'? ( a la Katigiri Roshi?) Two books have been written about Quality. In line with the suggestions of others, I suggest you read them with the understanding that they are about Quality. Sure you can describe Quality as some "nothingness", I have no problem with that, but you are describing Quality. We can call this Andre's metaphysics of quality. > > Your heaven in which, for all eternity 10.000 angels sing the cantates of > Bach in reverence to your holy trinity? Hmmm.... My Holy trinity makes up Quality. Do you have something against spirituality? Pirsig would not like that... > > What's your obsession with knowing about Quality? Pirsig is trying to teach us about Quality. You should ask him what his obsession is with Quality, not mine. Trying to know about Quality, sent him off the deep end, in case you forgot. Then he swam back and wanted to tell us about it. If you do not want to know about Quality, then what are you doing in a forum devoted to a Metaphysics of Quality? > > Mark: > It is all in how one uses Quality that matters. > > Andre: > This is a nice example of what I mean. Your 'how one uses Quality'[????] as > if it is some thing to be handled?????????????????? Mark: Well, if you have a problem with this then I cannot help you. All of ZAMM is devoted to how Pirsig uses his awareness of Quality. He provides many examples of how this can be done. One uses it by realizing that there are alternate ways is which to view reality. It is meant to broaden our understanding of our existence. Quality is an awareness of reality that Pirsig writes about in his books. He uses Quality to come up with the things that he does. I am not sure what you are using. Andre, I really am lost in terms of where you are coming from. Are you discussing the metaphysics of Pirsig (MoP), or the Metaphysics of Quality (MoQ)? This site is devoted to the latter. There is another good site which is devoted to Pirsig. > > Lolol. > > As Bodvar used to say: 'Go back to kindergarten'. Mark: Well, I will stick to discussing Quality in metaphysical terms since I believe that is the purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality. You can do anything you want. If you do not want to think about Quality that is fine by me. 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
