Quoting gav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> if i may gentlemen....
>
> platt:
> >
> > To the best of my recollection this is the first
> > time anyone has mentioned
> > that the MOQ has two viewpoints, one static and
> > other Dynamic. If that
> > is so, where in Lila and elsewhere in Pirsig's
> > writings can we pinpoint
> > the difference between the world of "everyday
> > affairs" (the realm of SOM)
> > and the realm of the Dynamic? I always thought the
> > description of leaping
> > off a hot stove was from the world of everyday
> > affairs, as was the story
> > of the brujo and the quotation form Humphrey., "I"ve
> > seen enough of the
> > this." That's why to me the MOQ "viewpoint" took
> > our everyday experience
> > of everyday events and provided a new interpretation
> > whereby instead of
> > experiencing subjects and objects we experience
> > patterns of value and a
> > creative force called Dynamic Quality, and where an
> > "individual," like
> > every other subject or object, really consists of
> > value patterns. To me
> > the breakthrough concept, explicated logically by
> > Pirsig in Lila, is that
> > reality is an evolutionary moral order.
> >
> > So I ask in all sincerity, what am I missing? Is the
> > MOQ based on some
> > experience other than experience of everyday
> > affairs? If so, how come
> > ZMM and Lila are grounded in everyday affairs?
>
> chapter 17 of lila deals with this issue.
>
> "....He had come to think of dreams as Dynamic
> perceptions of reality. They were suppressed and
> filtered out of consciousness by conventional patterns
> of static social and intellectual order but they
> revealed a primary truth: a value truth. The static
> patterns of the dreams were false but the underlying
> values that produced the patterns were true. ***In
> static reality**** there is no octopus coming to
> squeeze us to death, no giant that is going to devour
> us and digest us and turn us into a part of its own
> body so that it can grow stronger and stronger while
> we are dissolved and lost into nothingness. But in
> ****Dynamic reality*****?"
>
> Dynamic reality is capitalised because it is primary,
> fundamental more 'real' than static reality. it is the
> source of static reality.
>
> Dreams, epiphany, aesthetic arrest, near death
> experiences, love, awe, ....some of the names we give
> to the irruption of Dynamic reality into static
> reality.
>
> in static reality the ego (social individual) is real;
> in Dynamic reality it is not. the individual no longer
> exists, or, if you like, the individual is all.
>
> hope this helps.
Thanks Gav. I will ponder the "reality" of an octopus squeezing me to death.
In South Carolina, it's more likely to be an alligator. :-) But epiphany, awe,
aesthetic arrest, love -- these are indeed descriptive of experiences whereby
our everyday life of static patterns is interrupted by a response to DQ. At
least that's my understanding. But, I wouldn't call such experiences an
"MOQ viewpoint." Like a metaphysics should, the MOQ interprets explains rare
experiences like awe, aesthetic arrest, etc. as a integral part of its overall
explication of reality. But, I could be wrong.
Platt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
