Hello everyone On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:11 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > Dan to Joe: > > "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the > source of all things, completely simple and always new." [Lila] > > So if this isn't useful I am unsure what part of the MOQ is useful. > This seems like the foundation of it all. I get the feeling a number > of contributors here believe we all should just make it up as we go > along. > > Andre: > Hi Dan, Joe. You are making an important point here Dan, which, I believe, > cannot be stressed too frequently. A 'number of contributors' indeed devote > their posts entirely attempting to describe Quality in better ways > (according to them) than Pirsig did. Resulting in the usual drivel. They > maintain that Pirsig's ZMM and LILA is a DESCRIPTION of Quality. I think > this misses the point entirely. ZMM and LILA are an attempt at EXPLAINING > Quality...by analogy, by metaphor, through koan. > > Nowhere does Pirsig describe Quality in any detailed way. Not that I have > found anyway. And if someone argues that the above quote from LILA IS a > description I'd like to know WHAT it describes! > > I'm interested to hear your response to this Dan.
Hi Andre Thank you for writing. I found this in Lila's Child: Annotation 44. It is only Dynamic Quality I think is impossible to define. I think definition is both possible and desirable for the static levels. I just didn’t do it because these levels seemed so obvious. But in view of all the trouble people are having, I’m doing it now in these notes. [Robert Pirsig] Dan comments: I agree that the Quality in ZMM cannot be defined just as the Dynamic Quality in Lila cannot be defined. > > Also, what needs to be understood is that Quality is not a 'part' of the > MoQ, it is not a metaphysical chess piece. Even though, at times, used > interchangeably with Dynamic Quality it is important to remember that DQ > within the MOQ is a referring term which denotes the 'unconceptualised part > of reality'. > > Dan: > I am operating under the(perhaps mistaken) assumption that we are here to > discuss Robert > Pirsig's work and in particular the MOQ as described in Lila... are we not? > > Andre: > And I echo your sentiments Dan. It is annoying to say the least to have > posters here who think they can outsmart Pirsig and be downright insulting > to Anthony who devoted his PhD to it (not without being constructively > critical about the MoQ in some areas). Dan: Yes I tend to get annoyed too. Do you think anyone has noticed? > This has nothing to do with following dogma. It has everything to do with > reaching a better understanding of Pirsig's MoQ and finding out/realizing, > again and again why the MoQ is such a high quality static intellectual > pattern of value. Dan: When people don't seem to understand it seems best to go back to the beginning. So I agree with you here. > > And thank goodness for the fact that it does stand the way it > is...static/stable. If that would not have been the case, and 'a number of > contributors' would have (had) their way, it would have disappeared 15 years > ago. Dan: We are very fortunate to have had the caliber of contributors this list has attracted over the years. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
