Hi Rick, R Pirsig says that the MoQ's value is in providing a new central term for mysticism, a topic which he believes 'a scientifically oriented mind' would consider claptrap. I'm not sure why simply renaming a philosophical concept would convince anyone to reevaluate it (renaming 'creationism' as 'intellegent design' didn't change my opinion the quality of that theory).
Mark: 5-4-04: Mysticism is not conceptual, that is why many philosophers and scientists have a problem with it. Indeed, you are generating similar problems by placing the conceptual horse before the mystic cart, and this is confusing. One of the serious problems i find in these discussions is the nature of the discussion itself; if the discussion is conceptual, then there is no way we are going to progress. For this reason, and it is a rational decision, we should leave DQ well alone. As Pirsig himself suggests, we can discover a great deal about DQ by discovering what it is not. Rick: I think that scientist he's talking about would just say something like, "you can call it whatever you want but it's still just the same metaphysical claptrap." Mark: 5-4-04: Experience is not claptrap. If a scientist wishes to define Quality, then let him/her do so. But I think Anthony gets right to the heart of the question when he writes.... McWATT (from his textbook 2:3:5) "Firstly, the MOQ centres round the term 'Quality' (with a capital 'Q) which is used, interchangeably with 'Value'. 'Quality' is used to denote reality (by which Pirsig means the totality of what exists) in addition to its traditional context (i.e. as a synonym for excellence). In LILA, the term 'Quality' is interchangeable with the term 'Dynamic Quality' when a mystic viewpoint is taken. This can be confusing at times though the understanding that Pirsig is alluding to can usually be understood in the context of the particular passage." R ..I agree with Ant when he notes that Pirsig's use of Quality and dynamic quality as interchangeable 'in a mystic context' is confusing but I don't understand the second half of that sentence. Mark: 5-4-04: This goes back to which hat you are wearing, either your mystical or conceptual hat. The conceptual is inside the mystical, and if you mix them up you discover you cannot place the One inside the other. But don't ask me to explain the One because nobody can. The question i find interesting is how we move forward from this point? These discussions rather become caught up chasing a tail that will always be one step ahead of the chace. When dmb asks if the MoQ helps with the apparent distinction between the mystic and metaphysics, i would agree the answer is yes. This is because DQ is not conceptualised in the MoQ. Rick: It sounds as though he's conceding that Pirsig uses the terms inconsistently but that it's okay as long as one doesn't try and read it all together. Mark: 5-4-04: Or, one may wish to say, that in the conceptual realm of understanding, we are at an appropriately sophisticated level of perception as to choose not to extend concepts to the mystical realm of experience? All the best, Mark MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
