MFs 1. Free will Pirsig's explanation of free will as being dynamic and determination as being static is a fudge. It doesn't answer the question that's asked. In order to have free will you must have a subject, or else who's "will" is it that is free? If you want to have a will that is detached from a subject then that's really an entirely different paradigm and he should explain that that's what he's doing. He asks one question and answers another one. 2. Dynamic and static quality There seem to be three definitions of this a. D and S are fairly ordinary ideas about change and stability (eg Robert's Rules of Order). b. D and S is the difference between what's good and what's better. c. D and S are like two separate plains of reality, D being everything and S being a filtered version of things I don't think the three are entirely consistent with each other. 3. Quality and dynamic quality Dynamic quality in LILA assumes the role of Quality in ZMM, as far as I can tell, but DQ and Q seem to be used interchangeably, in LILA, and it's confusing in parts. 4. The computational theory of the mind Pirsig compares the levels to the levels of a computer. (I suppose he doesn't mean that that's exactly what they are like, but it's a good enough approximation.) But I think maybe this is misleading. The brain isn't a general operating system upon which you can run just about any software. He bases this theory in part on the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis which has since been discredited. Also from my own experience I fail to understand why anyone would think that the Chinese language doesn't distinguish between subjects and objects. (as claimed in ZMM) Chinese distinguishes subjects and objects by word order, ie "I bite dog" is different from "dog bite I". More recent theories of the brain describe it as having a series of "organs" for social learning, language, reasoning and so on. My guess is that all humans distinguish between subjects and objects because our brains are biologically programmed to do so. (Which is not to say that it's Truth, nor that you can't have a philosophy that overrides this.) Perhaps the MOQ can still fit this paradigm, but it would need some adjustment. We can't just ignore science because it doesn't suit us. 5. Space-time The Dynamic-static split takes place outside of time, or does it? I don't see that Pirsig's dealt with time at all. Actually it's quite understandable because scientists aren't really sure what time is either, or even if it exists at all. But if the question is unanswered then he should just say so and leave it as something we're not sure about either. I won't go into the whole of his response to Anthony McWatt on this subject but, again, I thought it was a fudge. He seemed to sidestep the question. Or maybe I'm just thick;-) Diana MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
