Chris [Ron mentioned] --
> Well, no, patterns are never in themselves Dynamic, but they > respond to Dynamic Stimuli (A Quality Event?) The different > rituals you mentioned are in fact social static patterns, however, > preferably a certain Dynamic Quality should be present - one > can simply go thought with the procedures lined out as social > patterns of value, but if there is no Dynamic Quality to it, well, > one might think it wouldn't feel all that good. So, those things > described are all static. In fact: everything you can ever > describe is static, since you cannot describe or capture > Dynamic Quality - if you do: it is immediately Static. Then how do you account for Ron's 180 degree turn-around? [Ron]: > But to be exact, yes you are quite right as I understand it. > So I guess we can answer the thread title by saying > theoretically a pattern is never static. [Chris]: > As I said, the patterns are static, but responds to Quality > (if they are to survive that is) So, then we see them they are > static, although from a MOQ perspective we can > understand that they respond to something we call Dynamic > Quality - that we do so is of course a static description > in itself, but not so much as other words/descriptions. It's a nice euphemism, Chris -- like "go with the flow" -- but it doesn't hold up when you analyze it. Also, it doesn't explain what a "thing" is. We still don't know if a rock is supposed to be something in our head, in a collective intellect, or in the "real world". Whether an object or event is an abstraction of Quality, an intellectual pattern, or a piece of Nature. The reason we don't know is that Pirsig never provided a metaphysical thesis to support his theory. It's all suggestion and innuendo gleaned from a work of fiction. That the MoQuist must resort to elaborate abstractions to express something as obvious as self-consciousness perpetuates its mystery and inventiveness. The followers try their best to write as if they understood the author's LevelSpeak, but the S/O duality resists their efforts, and in the end they're not enlightened. I continue to regard existence as a division of subjective sensibility from objective beingness, the absolute integration of which defines the primary source. It's a simple, cogent ontology that has logical plausibility without rejecting man's innate spirituality. I think any philosophy that fails to acknowledge the individual as the focal center of awareness is doomed from the start. If human sensibility cannot transcend the physical world and realize a connection to ultimate reality, existence is meaningless. And so is philosophy. Those are my thoughts, Chris. But I do appreciate your candor and willingness to articulate the MoQ position as you see it. In that sense, this exchange has been quite beneficial to me. Kindest regards, Ham 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/
