Krimel said:
In ZMM Pirsig uses the Tao to elucidate the cultural division between the
romantic and classic modalities. He shows how experience in the lifeworld gets
parsed into these two approaches or default modes of engagement. The romantic
emphasizes the affective, analog, heuristic, irrational qualities of experience
while the classic relies rational, algorithmic, logical and structured
qualities of experience. ....The Tao is the ultimate metaphysical tool for
uniting binaries. Nowhere does Pirsig suggest otherwise. ....
dmb says:
Nope, that's pure drivel. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're
a very bad reader too. Apparently, you cannot see the most obvious parallels in
conception and this whole exercise is a steaming pile of nonsense.
Look at how simple it is. It's just a matter of comparative analysis and the
comparison is totally obvious.
The opening line of the Tao Te Ching says, "The Tao that can be named is not
the true Tao" and in ZAMM he translates this into, "The quality that can be
defined is not the Absolute Quality". The Tao, like Quality in ZAMM or DQ in
Lila, cannot be named because names are static and Dynamic Quality is not.
That's why his metaphysics did nothing for either Quality or the Tao. DUH! As
soon as you name it, it is static quality. Pirsig is obviously quite consistent
in this and the fact that you can't see such an obvious point only serves to
make you look like an idiot.
The next step is to simply repeat exactly what Arlo said:
... by reading ZMM/LILA back to back its almost blindingly obvious that the
Quality of ZMM is what is Dynamic Quality in LILA. Here are just a few excerpts
from both, back to back, selected because the language around the terms is
identical.
Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality. (LILA)
He simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object can be
distinguished, there must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he
called awareness of Quality.... This preintellectual reality is what Phædrus
felt he had properly identified as Quality. (ZMM)
This object will not be a primary experience. It will be a complex pattern of
static values derived from primary experience. (LILA)
Our structured reality is preselected on the basis of value, and really to
understand structured reality requires an understanding of the value source
from which it's derived. (ZMM)
The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
"Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't
have to be defined. You understand it without definition, ahead of definition.
Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to intellectual
abstractions. (LILA)
Dynamic Quality, the source of all things, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of
reality, always appears as "spur of the moment." Where else could it appear?
(LILA)
Since all intellectually identifiable things must emerge from this
preintellectual reality, Quality is the parent, the source of all subjects and
objects. (ZMM)
In all of these, experience preceding conceptualization, indefinableness,
parent, source, cutting edge, direct experience; all of these show quite
clearly that there is no "terminological shift", endorsed by me or Pirsig. The
quote has already been given as to why he abandoned the romantic/classical
split, so I won't bother to restate that yet again.
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
