Diana and all Foci.
I haven't contributed to the "trouble list", my conviction is that
there is one root problem which is the source of all other, namely
the identity/self enigma. For now I will just use your compilation to
discuss some of the points. We are supposed to discuss them,
aren't we?
> I've done some processing on the problems and come up with a list.
> Personally I don't agree that all these actually are problems and I
> expect yous don't either, but in the spirit of brainstorming let's
> leave that for the time being and ask, is there anything else that
> ought to be included?
> QUALITY = MORALITY = REALITY
> 1.1 Pirsig shows that morality is a type of quality, but this does
> not mean that the opposite is always true.
Morality a type of quality? The opposite (quality a type of morality)
not always true. An example please.
> 1.2 Pirsig has proven that quality is real. However, that quality is
> reality itself has been left almost totally unsupported.
The first postulates - axioms - of any all-encompassing systems
(from geometry to metaphysics) are supposed to be self-evident:
not proven. It is the ability of the system to resolve the paradoxes
of the former which is its proof and the MOQ has done so
excessively regarding the SOM.
> 1.3 Pirsig has previously made it quite clear that patterns of
> static quality can all be placed within the four levels of the MoQ,
> but he also says that morality operates between the levels. Thus
> morality seems to be quite different from patterns of quality and
> it's a contradiction to say that quality and morality are the same
> thing.
It's between the levels that the conflicts are. AT a level the
different patterns are variations over a theme, but SOM tend to
interfere because its ethics invariably is human social morals, and it
spans al least three Q-levels.
> 1.4 For a conception to exist there has to be a counterconcept (ie,
> for there to be Good there must also be "not Good", for there to be
> moral, there has to be immoral), but there are no counterconcepts to
> Quality/Morality/Reality.
The counterpart to dynamic is static, the "immorality" is what the
static hierarchy is all about: the lower level being immoral to the
upper.
> QUALITY AND DYNAMIC QUALITY
> 2.1 Pirsig doesn't adequately distinguish between Quality and
> Dynamic Quality
You are right here Diana. The MOQ is dualistic, there is no use in
denying that (its dualism is better than the S/O though) and the
DQ/SQ distinction is principally fuzzy.
> DYNAMIC AND STATIC QUALITY
> 3.1 The various descriptions, definitions and examples of Dynamic
> and static quality aren't consistent with each other.
I agree about this, it's due to the human limitations :-)
This is not the complete list, but it'll do for now
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST