Hi Horse, Thank you for the questions. I see my previous response was insufficient.
Pirsig discusses Quality in terms of DQ and SQ. Further discussion would involve the manner in which DQ and SQ are used to provide meaning to the reader in terms of Quality. I am not sure why you think we should not discuss DQ since Pirsig does. Please refer to Lila for examples. I also think we should discuss SQ in terms of what it means fundamentally, not simply discuss a "truth" in these examples that Pirsig presents, for those are irrelevant and simply open the door to dialectic. Pirsig presents analogies to demonstrate how Quality can be used. This is to get us away from the "either/or" falacy we fall into. In Lila, Pirsig discusses Quality using analogies. What he does is provide examples of how Quality can be used to solve issues. These issues range from philosophical questions concerning free will to more mundane ones which evaluate political systems. The truth in what he presents is not important, what is important is how he uses Quality. We can start with these examples by evaluating how well Quality is presented by them. That is, according to our own understanding of Quality, are these examples appropriate for bringing about an understanding of Quality to the reader? But more importantly we can bring in more examples of how Quality can be used. I do this in some of my posts that are not dedicated to defending myself. We could also discuss why these “particular examples” are used. Again, for example, why are the levels used to provide understanding of Quality? These levels are borrowed from Science. There is nothing new about any of these levels, in fact they are rather outdated in the 21st century, where more "mystical" levels can be brought into the discussion. Any metaphysics should be appropriate to the times, and these four levels are a bit too scientific for this type of discussion, in my opinion. Quality has been discussed for thousands of years, and such discussion has included the DQ/SQ analogy. All through those years, Quality has also been explained as that which cannot be named (or defined), but this has not stopped discussion of such. What Pirsig presents is a paradigm of "what is". This "what is" is the same "what is" that has been discussed by man, forever. Approaches are different, but the subject matter remains the same. All these philosophies are discussing the same thing. To comprehend this, all it takes is some reading in these philosophies. I have tried to impart some knowledge in these areas throughout the years, as have others. Quality is an adjustment in view. It provides a manner for interpretation which is different to the objective approach that the West has succumbed to. This is why Pirsig brings in these alternate interpretations such as Zen and such. Quality can be analogized to the "fundamental substance" of all these philosophies. Like I said, we are not describing anything new, we are just doing so in a different (modern) way. Throughout the years in this forum, I have presented numerous discussions on DQ. I have provided many analogies which can be used to bring about understanding of what DQ is. It seems rather ignorant to me that you would question how to discuss it since I do so continuously. Perhaps you have not understood what I am presenting. Perhaps you do not understand what Quality means. Perhaps you think my only intention is to highjack the forum into something else. There are always complaints, but noboby points out, logically, where I have gone wrong. It seems to me that to participate in this forum, one must have an awareness of Quality, or, if not, one should ask questions about it and not simply be belligerent of another person’s opinion. I am not sure what many are holding on to so tightly. They need to let go and think logically. Logic can tear reason to pieces as demonstrated by Parmenides. We are a cult of reason worshiping that ghost of reason. Quality is an alternative. In keeping with the discussion mandate, I will ask the following question to the group: Why are the levels important in understanding Quality? Is this not worthy of discussion? Is this not a fundamental question? I am sure many have much better answers than I do. We are here to discuss Pirsig’s presentation of Quality using metaphysical terminology. How can we add to it, and where do we find it misleading in terms of our personal awareness of Quality? Quality was well understood after the publication of ZAMM. It seems much less understood now. This may be because many simply dwell in the examples Pirsig presents rather than why he does this. Hope this helps, but if not, please ask me more questions. Cheers, Mark On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Horse <[email protected]> wrote: OK Mark, let's try again. You keep harping on about discussing Quality so please explain to me (and everyone else), in a logical and rational way, how we discuss Quality. According to Pirsig, Quality has two components - Static and Dynamic (SQ and DQ) - and, as Arlo and DMB and many others have pointed out, DQ is not really up for discussion. So that leaves SQ. And yet you seem to think that SQ is not a subject worthy of discussion! So if we can't discuss one aspect of Quality (DQ) and you don't want to discuss the other aspect (SQ) then what exactly is it that you want to discuss? Let me know as I'm curious to find out! Horse On 28/11/2012 00:25, 118 wrote: Hi, I thought I would join this conversation since I assume it is open to the public. Before you recoil in terror, just listen to what I have to say. There is nothing illogical in what I write. I am interested in MoQ, not in some hate-fest. On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 6:53 AM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> wrote: [Horse] A good assessment Arlo. Perhaps it's about time that the members of this list take back the initiative to express what it is that Pirsig is saying. [Arlo] Agree. I've been somewhat preoccupied with other matters and, to be honest, my gumption level for dealing with that sort of trolling nonsense had pretty much been completed depleted. FWIW, I've been continuing to scan Northrop, albeit at a slower pace, but should be able to provide a digital copy of The Meeting of East and West to interested scholars in the near future. What would be nice is a collected effort to 'tag' the text to relevant or associated points made in Pirsig's writings. Mark: Thanks! I appreciate your effort. [Horse] It does need a concerted effort though - DMB is doing a good job countering the arguments of certain members but cannot do it on his own. Mark: Funny, I do not see any countering of my arguments except through the pasting of verse. I have dealt with Christians who aren’t as bad. [Arlo] The trouble is (as I think even DMB himself commented) DMB is trying to use an intellectual argument against an anti-intellectual position. The trolls are not interested in reason, or proof, or logic, or agreement with Pirsig, or anything of the sort. They are interested only in attacking the great evil of academia and rationality. Mark sees his incoherence not as a weakness, but as PROOF that he is operating "on a level above" DMB. The very fact that DMB makes citations to Pirsig is PROOF to Mark that his uncited, unsupported ramblings about Pirsig are superior. Marsha isn't interested in anything Pirsig says that contradicts the old SOLAQI nonsense, she is here beat on intellect-as-SOM and academics as SOM-stuck preachers. Mark: I am not sure what you mean by PROOF, Arlo, all I read are emotional rantings. What proof do you speak of? Please explain in a rational manner. Or is this simply another typical complaint cluster? My arguments are purely rational and logical. MoQ is a metaphysics of Quality. Therefore the subject matter of such metaphysics is Quality. DMB states that Quality cannot be discussed. I am not sure what metaphysics he is therefore discussing. I have shown dmb that the quotes he presents should not be interpreted in the way he does. He has assigned Quality to a simplistic model, and then goes on to make pronouncements of society and politics. Can you not see that this is misguided? Pirsig uses examples to explain Quality. These examples are not meant to be a dictum on the way SQ should be. DMB completely dismisses DQ, again claiming some mystical interpretation that is as far away from rationality as it gets. If we are to discuss Pirsig's model, the primary focus of such discussion should be in its interpretation of Quality. If members are unwilling to discuss this, then they have completely missed the point of Pirsig's books. This is a metaphysics OF Quality, not a metaphysics of SQ. Science already provides that. Science brings forth the four levels that are presented. Science is metaphysics of the objective which includes the intellect, the way in which it is dealt with in MoQ. What happened to DQ? DMB has completely objectified what MoQ teaches. He has classified everything in Aristotelian fashion. This is exactly what MoQ is against. I do not blame dmb since he must take an academic stance on these things. However, the Western academic approach is exactly what Phaedrus was fighting against. It is a pity that we have come full circle. Go ahead, refute what I say in a rational way. If you have nothing to say that is not complaining then just remain quiet and let some of us discuss MoQ in terms of its presentation of Quality. Do you even know what Quality is?! * Side note: it was funny, of course, when following a string of posts accusing DMB of weakness and inferiority for providing evidence, quotes and citations, to see Pirsig's comments on politics be summarily dismissed as weak and inferior because he doesn't provide evidence, quotes and citations. I guess the lesson is you only need citations when you challenge right-wing orthodoxies (and my guess is they would be dismissed anyway as 'biased'), any other time citations just prove stupidity. Mark: Lila was not meant to be a treatise on politics or society. At the beginning of ZAMM he explained that such book was not about Zen, or about Motorcycle maintenance. He should have made the same disclaimer at the beginning of Lila. Pirsig does not have the background to make educated statements about these things. He himself would say as much. He uses these things as analogies to present Quality, and how the paradigm of Quality can bring an alternate view to such things. The question should be, is he effective in presenting Quality. Obviously he was not for many in this forum, since they do not see the importance of Quality in MoQ. [Horse] I have said that this list should be expressly about Pirsig's MoQ and not a mish-mash of poorly thought out 'in my opinion' nonsense. Pirsig is the best place to go for evidence of how the MoQ works and quotes supporting a position. Mark: Horse, I completely agree with you. Why don't you present something about MoQ rather than arbitrarily condemn those of us who do because we do not agree with another. What is a discussion without music? You are playing a marching band. Zappa would be disappointed. Try a little jazz. [Arlo] I, in no way, meant to imply fault on your end, Horse. In fact, if anything, I include your voice to the voices that have been drown out by the trolling. I do understand, of course, that its never just that, we all have other lives and other endeavors, but its sad that the stronger voices here (apart from DMB) are no longer as active. Mark: Ah yes, the complaint by the norm. Just remember, Phaedrus was a wolf, not some academic philosopher trying to fit everything into Western thought. Stronger voices? Is this the marching band you are referring to? Why are there not more people on this forum seeing as how popular ZAMM was? This is because of such voices who have relegated ZAMM (Pirisg's autobiography) to some trivial post. Everything you need to know is in ZAMM. Lila has simply led most astray. [Horse] Take back the list now or risk losing it to wooly-headed garbage. It's your choice. Mark: Yes, I agree. Let's discuss MoQ, not some political ideal. Let us discuss Quality in metaphysical terms. How about you Horse? Have you got any contributions? Do you think MoQ is a good presentation of Quality? If so, Why? [Arlo] Agree. I admit to my own part in letting the nonsense get in the way. Mark: If you find it to be nonsense, then provide a rational explanation as to why. All this complaining and victimization that I read in the forum has got to stop. Provide an argument against what I present. Stop whining, this is the real world, not some academy award presentation. Best regards and I look forward to a coherent argument. Mark, another wolf. 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 -- "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." — Frank Zappa 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
