[Krimel] One would be better served to cross out dynamic and capitalize Quality throughout...
[Arlo] I usually think of "Dynamic Quality" as simply "Quality", which is why I have no problem saying "Quality precedes both subjects and objects" (which is, of course, says the same thing as "Dynamic Quality precedes static quality"). Personally, I find the language of ZMM more useful in non-metaphysical discussions and rely on it quite a bit. To extend the analogy I was using, when you're down talking at the roots, I think ZMM's language works because at that point, in many ways, you haven't ventured into the metaphysical territory of trunks and leaves. (Its also why his "Quality is the Tao" works). [Krimel] Pirsig when asked about this by Paul Turner gives this off the cuff nod to the fact that he confused the terms but rather than admit to the typos in Lila says he supposes we could just omit Quality from the MoQ. This is ludicrous on its face. [Arlo] Well, trying to construct a metaphysics requires precision, and I think ZMM and LILA had different contexts, audiences and goals. Its also why the MOQ doesn't use the terms "romantic quality" and "classic quality". In any event, I think I recall seeing someone, somewhere suggest abolishing DQ/SQ and use Q/q' (big-Q, little-q as derivative). I don't know, I don't sweat the terminology unless it alters the meaning. [Krimel] But we do have experiences (plural) and they are not experienced as unique. [Arlo] In the immediate flux, prior to abstraction and intellectualization, there is no 'unique/non-unique', that is static derivative of experience. [Krimel] My "eye" or DM's banana are experienced through the lens of habits of thought. [Arlo] See, right there you are back in S/O logic. You've just placed 'static quality' (both the subject and the object) as prior to 'experience'. Once you done this, using the labels of static, dynamic and quality won't undo the S/O damage. I get that this shift (Quality preceding both subjects and objects) is a big one, but its at the heart of both ZMM and LILA, and I don't think you're really understanding Pirsig if you don't get this very significant foundational statement. You can disagree with Pirsig, to be sure. But given that the alternative you seem to propose (static quality existing prior to experience) is simply SOM using Pirsig's terms, there is likely not much for me to discuss. 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
