Date: Mon Apr 05 2004 - 17:13:12 BST
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
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.
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
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
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
..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.
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,
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 06 2004 - 01:04:08 BST