From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:09:17 GMT
Hi Sam,
> ..... The fact is, god CAN be used interchangeably with DQ, just like tao
> can.
>
> I think the equation of God (or tao) with DQ is a mistake, even leaving
> aside theological quibbles. As I understand the MoQ, the equivalent of God
> (or tao) is Quality - which is then subdivided into dynamic and static, and
> no subdivision can be the highest term.
>
> The common lapse into equating dynamic quality with God (or tao) reflects
> cultural biases in favour of innovation and "progress" rather than Pirsig's
> own thought, IMHO. What makes a DQ innovation positive rather than negative
> is precisely its integration with static patterns - so DQ and SQ are yoked
> together like yin and yang. Pirsig preserves that balance. Many
> contributors do not - again, IMHO ;-)
I agree that equating DQ with God (or Tao or anything supernatural) is
wrong. But I disagree that God can be equated to Quality. IMHO, the MOQ is
atheistic to the core. The MOQ provides a naturalistic explanation of
reality. There's a natural tendency to ascribe supernatural powers to DQ
because it can't be explained in so many words, but neither can energy,
that mysterious force that science regards as the ultimate source of
everything but is nothing if not natural.
Regards,
Platt
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 : Fri Mar 19 2004 - 15:09:16 GMT