[Marsha] Hi Ron, Are you looking for one absolute answer? That seems like a tough request where everything is relative, transient process.
[Ron] No, but people speak as though there is an absolute answer. They say s/o distinction can be dropped, rather easily I might add. I say s/o distinction is one with value and can not be dropped. It can be balanced but not dropped. To drop s/o distinction is to drop experience itself. [Marsha] I can only explain the way I experience it. I will use the word quality rather than value because it makes more sense, to me, in respect to your question. If All is Quality(Dynamic & static) and Quality(Dynamic & static) is process, than, to me, it doesn't matter. All is process with no separation. There is no subject or object. That there is a perception of subject and object is just a mistaken static pattern of value. This s/o dualistic point-of-view is sometimes useful for solving problems in the way that we do, but still not reality. Your question: How can Quality both proceed and happen as a result of subject meeting object? There is only Quality. Subject is process, object is process, and process is Quality (Dynamic & static). The demarcation doesn't exist. If my statements don't make sense to you, keep at the question. [Ron] I understand what you are saying and agree! I'm offering a point as to how MOQ can be widely interpreted yet still hold all its precepts. One can cite Pirsig passage after passage supporting their interpretation, for Quality has manifold meaning.Yet folks tend to speak of it in terms of absolutes. Anthony suggests this in his post to Ham: "In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its true essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is the real nature of the determinate itself." Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; the 'static' conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the 'Dynamic' ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca). [Ron] which I interpret to mean static value and dynamic value are differing types of value. Value or quality is an umbrella term to cover many meanings. The mistake I see is when one places static value before subjects and objects in lieu of dynamic value. I believe doing this gives a false interpretation of a moral universe. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
