Hi Andre,

> David to Andre:
> Why do you call Marsha names such as an 'eel in the bucket'?
>
> Andre:
> I realize it is not a nice way to address a participant on this discuss in this way David. The metaphor goes back quite some time and arose from the notion that Marsha sleezes her way out of 'conversations' in slippery ways. In the Netherlands it is an expression which denotes such a tactic, hence my ready use of it. I know I should stop it but problem is that she continues doing it. See her latest post to me. I promise I will better my ways though.

Okay. That's good.

> David:
> I get that she is frustrating because she doesn't want to accept that sq is old, fixed and complex.  But she is right in the end no? Ultimately things aren't static.
>
> Andre:
> From an MOQ perspective, which is what we are doing here it is not right David, with all respect. We are not talking 'ultimately'. We are talking the first slice of Pirsig's MOQ which is DQ/sq. There are reasons why Phaedrus put it in this way. He explains it in LILA.( Marsha calls it 'rhetoric'). To suggest that DQ and sq are the same is silly to put it euphemistically.
>
> Again, we do not discuss things the way they are 'ultimately'. We discuss things from the perspective of the MOQ, an intellectual pattern of value, a continuation of mainstream American pragmatic philosophy. It was written in an attempt to make this world a little better.

Yes. This is one perspective of the MOQ and it's not 'wrong'.  I will also say though, that the MOQ has a division at its core. So fundamental is this division of the MOQ - it leads to two very separate very different perspectives.  From the perspective of static quality, yes, the MOQ is an intellectual pattern of value.  But, fundamentally, as I've said, the MOQ is more than that. It is a way of life.  There is so much more to life than this or that static classification.  DQ cannot be defined but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> David:
> I call her a Mystic ........
>
> Andre:
> Please David, are you putting Marsha in the same league as Siddharta Gautama, Lao Tsu, Eckhart, Krishnamurti to name but a few? Did any of these persons reject sq, i.e. reject the world as we know it and live in it? They all perceived DQ via static quality patterns and attempted to share that with us through their writings and teachings. Phaedrus did the same. To use DQ/sq interchangeably is to miss the point because nowhere can you find the finger.

As I see it, in Marsha's mind - everything is fundamentally DQ, so these sq divisions are not that important.  I don't know of a better description of a Mystic.. I can see how it can be totally frustrating to talk with Marsha because she's not interested in this or that philosophical distinction.  I mean, this is a philosophical discussion board right?  

But my point is her perspective isn't 'wrong'. In fact, the MOQ includes her perspective and offers a better way of seeing things. It says.. 'Marsha, you're right. We can't define things. We always get it wrong. So why should we bother with such distinctions?  We should bother, the MOQ says, because we cannot avoid them. Here we are talking about them. There's not a person alive who hasn't in some way made some such a distinction.'

If we can help her see that then maybe she will change her mind.... Until then, it's just hot air...

> David:
> The Metaphysics of Quality expands our mystical understanding of the universe.  It isn't in direct opposition to it.
>
> Andre:
> I completely agree. The MOQ shows that sq is a manifestation of DQ (Quality). But how do we apprehend Quality? Through recognizing this (sq) manifestation without which there is no realization possible in the first place, no?
>
> Marsha's use of sq is negative. She continues to argue that position on the basis of pointing to their inherent, empty nature. It's all relative, it's not real, it's all words, it's all just somebody's opinion. In other words; nihilistic. (I did ask her to clarify her perspective once but she refused to answer). According to her point of view DQ and sq are interchangeable and this, I maintain is fundamentally and deliberately misreading Pirsig (whose authority she rejects when it suits her).
>
> DQ alone has no staying power, sq is the stabilizing force i.e. a repeated arrangement which does not change by itself. You need DQ to do that.
>
> Without sq there is no MOQ. Without DQ there is no MOQ.
>
> Hope my clarification makes sense.

It sure does, and I can't say that I disagree one bit. But this is but one perspective of the MOQ as I've said.  It's that of fixed, static patterns. Fundamentally, the MOQ says that there aren't just fixed static patterns. So ultimately Marsha is right. Now she just needs to move beyond that and realise that she's on a philosophical discussion board...

-David.


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org/md/archives.html