MF Re: March 2004 - Metaphysics and the mystical reality.

From: Valence (
Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 00:41:59 GMT

  • Next message: Wim Nusselder: "Re: MF Discussion topic for March 2003"

    Hey DMB, Sam, Mark and all:

    DMB concluded to SAM:

    >> As I've tried to demonstrate, I think the error is yours, not Pirsig's.

    >> you see as an inconsistency is merely a misreading on your part. The
    >> difference between 'Quality' and 'Dynamic Quality' as referents to the
    >> mystical reality is only the difference between ZAMM and LILA, between
    >> pre-MOQ terms and MOQ terms. His second book only gets more specific

    >> he no longer refuses to do metaphysics. As such it is perfectly consistent
    >> for Pirsig to identify DQ with the mystical reality, especially since the
    >> first eight chapters serve as a transition from ZAMM's Quality to the

    >> Dynamic Quality.

    RICK chimes in:
    For what it's worth, I don't think you've defeated Sam's argument Dave. I
    think you raised some valid points, but I don't believe they were really
    here nor there concerning the thrust of Sam's case...

    >> Sam explained:
    >> My problem can be expressed in the following way. Assume that "the

    >> reality" is ultimately indefinable. In the first of these quotations

    >> identifies the indefinable with Quality as such, in the second he

    >> it with Dynamic Quality.
    >> dmb replies:
    >> Yes, the mystical reality is beyond definition, we agree about that, but

    >> think you're making a mountain out of an ant hill by objecting to the use

    >> two different terms for that mystical reality.

    I think you missed the point of Sam's objection right off the bat. As I
    read Sam, the issue is not the use of two different terms for mystical
    reality, it's about the identification of the mystical reality with two
    distinct philosophical concepts, to wit: (1) mysticism = Quality (the one
    undivided whole etc) or (2) mysticism = dynamic quality (a subdivision of
    Quality which excludes static patterns).

    I think the distinction between the terms Quality and Dynamic Quality is
    highlighted in the quote you included which read, "But he realized sooner or
    later he was going to have to stop carping about how bad SOM was and say
    something positive for a change. Sooner or later he was going to have to
    come up with a way of dividing Quality that was better than subjects and
    objects." This evidences the idea that "static and dynamic", like 'subjects
    and objects' or 'romantic and classic' are all just possible conceptual
    subdivisions of a greater unified entity, in this case called Quality.
    Pirsig makes a comment to this effect somewhere in Lila when muses about how
    even SOM was really a Metaphysics of Quality, merely one that divided
    Quality up into subjects and objects.

    take care

    Truth springs from argument amongst friends. - David Hume

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archive -
    MF Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 24 2004 - 02:04:36 GMT