Dennis wrote:

"Nothing" is an unactualizable state of affairs. For the classical theist, all beings proceed from a metaphysically necessary (and simple = that which has no parts, physical or metaphysical) being which we call God.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2012/07/classical-theism-roundup.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creation-conservation/

Right well what you call God I call Good.

Dennis wrote:

You've never defined Quality, you've made it synonymous with qualitative experiences, and then you hop from one side to another. So again, is the term "quality" equivalent to  qualitative experiences or not? If you distinguish it from qualitative experiences, then you can't use it synonymously with it. If you don't, then they are qualitative experiences and you can't say it is not it.

  
Quality isn't just qualitative experience.  Quality includes static quality and undefined betterness - Dynamic Quality. The qualitative judgement (which is static quality) is obviously synonymous with Quality as it's the judgement of the Quality of something.

Dennis wrote:

Exactly my point, "X is before all kinds of test." Is it really us who aren't charitable? You again conflate qualitative experiences and judgement with what you call quality and leave it totally vacuous. And I've repeatedly stated this, there still seems to be no improvement.
End of the line, I can say for an entity X, and argue the same way you do, by making equally vague statements of 'X-ing' as I deny what they are when pressed, and proclaim what it is. This is the end of the line.

This works because I haven't said 'X is before all kinds of tests.'  I've said that X is before a logical test of truth.  To you that appears to be 'all kinds of tests'. But there is another test before this.  In fact, this is the test which makes things true to being with.  And that's the Quality of the idea. The only way to understand the new viewpoint X is to try it on for yourself and see if it works and is of value.. Not by simply comparing it continually to what you already know and saying 'oh you're just claiming what this other person has already said' or not by (more frequently) 'oh, you're not giving me anything to compare it to what some other person has said'. I talk more about this below..

Dennis wrote:

Actually, I've been really nice so far. You are wilfully misleading the people who visit your website by giving them wrong conceptions of what other metaphysics think about certain things, you don't think this needs to be corrected? You are totally fine with this? I'm not. It's simply false.

The point of som.is is to demonstrate that no matter the issue it ultimately ends up in a battle between subject, object and those varying greys in between.  In all this, the thing which creates both subject and object is missed and not metaphysically acknowledged.  This is for historical reasons previously mentioned..

But yes, you have indeed been nicer.  And yes, this reminds me that I have also heard from others that these could be more accurate. I've heard from others too that Kant should be updated to Berkeley.   I believe Matt said I should update the Descartes as well which I will look into.  Any suggestions?   The Bohr on the other hand (Matt's other mention) is accurate as it's a questionmark against the subject which I think is correct.

Dennis wrote:

Since you've agreed that quality isn't synonymous with being, it couldn't possibly have that kind of extension. But if it's prior to all things (even being) this is a grand claim and needs to be explained, that is assuming you are able to see how quality is not synonymous with qualitative experiences. If you're not, end of discussion. I'm tired of you hopping between how the term is used and employing it with the kind of extension you seem to have in mind. Answer these questions and let's make the rubber hit the road..
This'll perhaps be my final post, though iwpoe could still continue to talk with you.
If you're unable to. . .
- Distinguish quality from being

Quality isn't being as being is a definable particular thing - while the ultimate Quality - Dynamic Quality - is not definable. The best we can call it is 'undefined betterness' or allude to it as previously mentioned. 

Dennis wrote:

- and then define and then demonstrate that we experience 'quality' (which is distinct from being)

I cannot define that we experience Quality.  That should simply be obvious to anyone alive. As mentioned, you can't get out of bed in the morning or indeed do anything after that - without making a qualitative/value judgment that it's better to do so.  As repeatedly stated - Quality is before definition.
  

Dennis wrote:

- after which you can talk about its extension and how it applies to everything!
We can't talk. My main annoyance is with your completely definition-less usage of the term backed with the principle of acquaintance of something we never experience (that hasn't already been deemed one thing or the other in different metaphysics)!

If this is the end of the discussion then so be it..

It's a shame because I feel as though we never actually got to discuss the MOQ.  Both Matt and yourself seem to be more interesting in comparing the MOQ to what you already know rather than understanding the uniquely beatiful, and logical, metaphysical system that it is. 

Philosophology is what Pirsig would call it.  'Art history or art appreciation is to art as philosophology is to philosophy.  It is done by people who are not seeking to understand what is written but only to classify it so that they don’t have to see it as anything new.' 

All the best,

David.

iwpoe wrote:

Good is a property (quality) of things.

Qualities are distinguishing features (properties) of things.

Quality is the name for being a distinguishing feature of things in general.

Dynamic quality is a non-sense combination of words that you can't talk about because you say it can't be done.

Static quality makes no sense unless it's synonymous with quality, in which case it's superfluous.
-----------------------

Good is the source of all things.

Qualities are distinguishing features of Good.

Quality another name for the source of all things.

Dynamic Quality is specifically the undefined source of all things.

Static quality is specifically the defined quality of something.


-----------------------

iwpoe wrote:

Do not update Kant to Berkeley since the sense in which he means things are ideal isn't what your narrative makes it.

And what is that narrative - do you know?  

iwpoe wrote:

Really, just don't do any history of philosophy until you read a few introductions to the philosophers you're talking about other than Pirsig's remarks on them. The Very Short Introductions series is quite competent. Then maybe read like at least one key work- maybe two. At least crack open the Critique of Pure Reason if you're going to talk about Kant at least a little. We all had to suffer through him; you don't get a pass.

Really, I'd just recommend putting down Pirsig and reading... any... introduction to metaphysics published by anyone of actual note in the last ~2,500 years.

I'd ultimately recommend putting down Pirsig. I've read Zen and the Art of Motor Cycle Maintenance. I've read some actual Zen texts too. The only thing I have to say about the experience is thank God that Kerouac didn't have pretensions to a metaphysical system when he finished On the Road or else we'd have two popular zen delusions of grandeur in our country.

Pirsig is a crank. You want to be a crank? Keep copying Pirsig. Indeed, copying Pirsig is probably the last thing he'd want given his self-obsession with being all out by himself. He's no more a leader than Kurt Cobain; just a grown up boy with a big mouth making proclamations about things he didn't bother to actually read.

You want to follow Pirsig's ideas anyway? Fine. Disguise their origin, actually bother to read the texts he didn't (it's obvious that you've read no better than him), and then if any of it holds water after you've done a real reading of the texts he criticizes, come back to us.

I have actualy read some Kant and some of a short introduction to Metaphysics and whilst I haven't read all the texts he criticices I have read the most important text in the book you've read of his called 'Phaedrus' by Socrates.   In fact I have written a response to a prominent presocratic academics reading of this dialogue and ZMM in particular.  I welcome you to read it - there's a link on the first post of this thread.

iwpoe wrote:

Look, I'm the resident general history of philosophy guy here. The only period in philosophical history I can't smell obvious bullshit about is arabic philosophy and the middle ages, and we have plenty of others who can for those. You want to sneak one by me, just take out the historical content and present a general metaphysics. Of course, your general metaphysics. such as it is, is also unconvincing- mainly because it's either saying some things already said much better by... not-Pirsig or it's blatantly incoherent, but I hold that against you less. I actually am starting to find your doubling and tripling down on its incoherence rather ballsy.

Also, keep in mind that a key reason why I'm comparing it to other philosophical writings is because you have websites that explicitly compare it to other philosophical writings. You're doing this annoying crank thing where your guru has prepped you for something "Hurp-derp, Pirsig says you'd talk about other philosophers!"  as if that's an objection. Just because Pirsig thinks comparing himself to other people is somehow invalid (probably because he's a loon and it makes him look bad) doesn't make it so.

Simply because you're unable to suspend judgement until you fully understand the MOQ doesn't mean that it's incoherent.  The alternative may be that you simply have yet to fully understand what the MOQ is and so the 'incoherent' claim is one of misunderstanding.

Furthermore your reading of Pirsig is stuck in his first book.  In his second book he explicitly compares himself to William James and there are indeed many similarities. 

iwpoe wrote:

You literally disavow any possibility of actual discussion because you want me to start playing a very peculiar word game with you.where I'm made to accept a very thick and idiosyncratic concept of "quality" not because you have a good argument but because "it's obvious" even though it can't be obvious since no one here even knows what you're talking about. Even people who think that God can only be spoken of analogically give me more to work with than that (look it up).

And I know people here don't know what you're talking about, because I talk to them outside of this crackpot thread of yours. Dennis and I are the only people even half interested in talking to you. I mainly because I think you're a dangerous sophist (in the pejorative sense) who can corrupt otherwise good philosophical minds if not corrected and Dennis because, well, I don't know why Dennis likes this. I think he's just a really warmhearted guy who wants to help you from the bottom of his heart. You've fallen under the spell of a guru. I get it. For lots of young men, it was Rand. In my case it was Nietzsche, but Nietzsche has the merit of forcing you to read people other than himself because even in his interpretive failures he's fundamentally trying to be an honest reader of texts. Pirsig seems mianly upset that he's stuck writing computer manuals after a mental breakdown because he couldn't hack it in Dr. McKeon's classes or in research science or in any academia really despite his 170 IQ or whatever horseshit he made up about himself. It sucks to dissapoint your professor father. Boo-hoo. I'm sure he made good money on his book. So did Atlas Shrugged and The Secret but sales is kinda like being good.

I also was a Nietzsche fan.  I still agree with his statement "That which doesn't kill us makes us stronger" too.

And yes strong sales don't mean much - I agree there.  For instance I think Pirsig's second book - Lila is better than his first.  But being more on the philsophical side than on the novel side (as opposed to his first book) it has sold less copies.

iwpoe wrote:

 
Will you concede then that you are operating with two senses of quality?

Yes and I find to be clear it is best to call them Dynamic Quality(undefined betterness) and static quality.

iwpoe wrote:

It seems for me that you'll have to assent to the following sentence:

- Qualities are distinguishing features of quality

If that is to say anything about quality the qualities cannot simply have the same meaning as quality itself or you'd just be in a tautology.

I agree with the statement 'qualities' (static quality) are distinguishing features of Quality(Dynamic Quality) as Dynamic Quality is the source of all things.  

But the sum total of all qualities isn't Dynamic Quality.  The sum total of all qualities is static quality.

iwpoe wrote:

I would point out that you have defined 'dynamic quality' as "good", "possessing static quality", "source", etc. Since you don't have a doctine of analogy, this isn't sustainable. You are defining it all the time.

Yes, I can see how this can quickly get confusing.  Much of the confusion lies in the fact that you've only read Zen and Art of Motorcycle Maintenance so I have to continually jump between understandings of the word 'Quality'.  The undefined 'Quality' in ZMM becomes Dynamic Quality(the source of all things) in the MOQ. Defined qualities become static quality in the MOQ.  After an understanding of the MOQ is found Quality then becomes a shorthand way of saying both 'Dynamic Quality' and 'static quality' together but I find this just often results in confusion and so it's better to specify which one you're talking about.

Dynamic Quality could be defined as 'not static quality' so it is different.

 

Yes, and so I have already said more than I should about Dynamic Quality.  The best to say about Dynamic Quality is the Zen phrase 'not this, not that'.