From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 21:24:43 GMT
Sam and all MOQers:
Sam Norton asked DMB:
Would you be happy that there is a difference between these two views (or am
I making a division where none exists?)
View A: the static/dynamic split of "reality" is metaphysically equivalent
to the classic/romantic split, or the subject/object split; the relationship
between the static and dynamic can be pictured like the yin/yang symbol, and
the whole (DQ/SQ) is a representation of reality.
View B: the static/dynamic split is metaphysically different to the
classic/romantic split in that the dynamic is the underlying mystical
reality itself, and the static is a derivative product resulting from the
operations of that DQ in time. DQ is conceptually and morally prior to SQ,
and therefore superior to it in a way that cannot be represented by use of
the yin/yang symbol.
dmb says:
I'll be repeating myself because I touched on this in the other forum, but
basically I think that when we say DQ is "primary" and sq is "secondary" we
are talking about a sequence of events in the MOQ's epistemology. In this
case, primary does not mean "superior" or "better". It only means primary in
the sense of being the most basic, the first in a sequence. So I think we
can continue to talk about the epistemological relationship in terms of
what's primary and what's secondary, but that we should not construe that to
mean that secondary means anything like "inferior" or "derivitive".
In terms of the two view, I have to confess I'm a bit lost. In view A, for
example, I don't see how the classic/romantic spilt or the subject/object
split is "metaphysically equivalent" to the static/dynamic split. He
thoroughly attacks one and abandons the other in order to have the third. So
what does it mean to say they are equivalent?
Another issue that my have lots of import here is the idea of 180 degree
enlightenment and 360 degree enlightenment. (I think it was Ant who provided
that explanation.) In this view, static quality will be an obstacle to DQ
until it is transcended, at which point it becomes transparent to the
divine, if you will. (And I don't mean just religious static forms, but all
of static reality.) Roughly speaking the MOQ combines the idea that the
divine is transcendent AND that it is immanent at the same time.
Yea, the yin/yang symbol look like the MOQ to me.
Sam said:
Until last year I had believed the MoQ to be advocating View A (with
"Quality" referring to the underlying mystical reality, then being
subdivided), but following our discussions (in MF in March 04) I came away
thinking that the MoQ in fact advocates View B. The most important point in
favour of this perspective is Pirsig's comment that in ZMM when he talked
about Quality he was in fact talking about DQ. I still remember my feeling
of surprise on reading that. View A, by the way, seems compatible with
'contradictory identity', so far as I understand it, whilst View B does not.
dmb replies:
If I recall, your idea was that there are three parts: Quality, Dynamic
Quality and static quality. I'd objected by pointing out that Quality is
divided in half by the static/dynamic split and so there are only two parts,
so to speak. I that what we're talking about here? ZAMM does not yet make
this split and so talks about Quality without designating it as one or the
other. Basically he was still refusing to define it in any way. And if I
recall, Pirsig said that USUALLY he was talking about DQ when he was talking
about Quality in ZAAM. In LILA, he corrects this lack of detail, admittedly
at the expense violating the mystic's prohibition against such intellectual
descriptions. So I think the idea here is that reality is undivided and one,
but that we need divisions and distinctions to do metaphysics. And so the
best he can come up with is to divide this reality in such a way that the
first division is between that which can be defined and that which can't.
He's giving the mystic AND the metaphysician what they need most even though
those needs are so opposed to each other. Its kinda brilliant.
I have a feeling that I didn't really give you what you're after. Maybe
you'd like to sort out the differences between the two views a bit. I'm just
not sure what the difference is or what difference you're getting at.
Thanks.
dmb
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 21:29:33 GMT