Greetings Bo, At 02:27 PM 2/16/2007, Bo wrote: >Marsha > >15 Feb. you said to (I call her Heather) > >Who had quoted Lila (Ch. 5): > > > >Quality is indivisible, undefinable and > > >unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a > > >known, but a metaphysics can be none of these things. > > >A metaphysics must be divisible, definable and > > >knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics. Since a > > >metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical > > >definition and since Quality is essentially outside > > >definition, this means that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' > > >is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical > > >absurdity." > >And you said: > > > Don't you think that is perfect? > >I'm not able to decipher if this is sarcasm or agreement. Anyway >to use Phaedrus against Pirsig (ZMM page 30)
I meant perfect in a wondrous way. > So I go on. ``For example, it seems completely natural to > presume that gravitation and the law of gravitation > existed before Isaac Newton. It would sound nutty to think > that until the seventeenth century there was no gravity.'' > [.....] It seems to me that law of gravity has passed every > test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single > attribute of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't > have. > >Here the point is that Gravity came to be with Newton, meaning >that the phenomenon of things falling to the ground has always >existed, but that Newtons explanation of it came with Newton. A >valid point, but above Pirsig makes it sound as if Quality is >something outside the Quality metaphysics and that goes against >the said reasoning. Of course, Quality is the DQ of the MOQ* >something that makes it the meta-level that contains itself. > >To harp some more on it: In Newton's Physics, Gravity has >always existed and inside the MOQ Quality has always existed, >but Pirsig disparages metaphysics after first having (correctly) >stated that nobody can exist outside one. > >*) Somewhere Pirsig (post-LILA) says so, but the >misunderstanding of a QUALITY outside the DQ/SQ persists. It seems to me that both "falling to the ground" and Newton's explanation are descriptions. The MOQ is also a description. Both DQ and sq within the MOQ are descriptions. But the Quality that is described in the MOQ represents an experience, a value experience, not another description. Are you wanting to put into the MOQ the sages/buddhas level? Those who have fully realized the view from above all levels? m 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
