[Marsha]:
My beef is your insinuation that Quality, which is beyond
definition, needs to be associated with words like: primary,
first, or purpose. To call Quality the primary source is an
attempt to make it static, turn it into a static pattern of value.
You go too far.
Ah, yes. The infamous and ill-conceived "static/dynamic" split.
(I might as well get this off my chest as well.) Patterns, like movement
and change, are differentiated events which only occur in a relational
system. Relation is the nature of physical reality which is secondary to
the primary source.
I never understood why the Pirsigians insist that their fundamental reality
must be dynamic, while its derived patterns are static. This seems
illogical to me. Even in the mysticism of the Orientals, what is absolute
and whole is unchanging, whereas the mind interprets it as a flow of
pluralistic events.
You see, Marsha, for the essentialist Essence is static and immutable,
impervious to the conditions of finitude. It is existence which is
differentiated and transient. And this is because the locus of subjective
experience -- individuated awareness -- is detached from the essential
source, thus limited in its perspective. In biblical terms, we "see through
a glass, darkly." What we see is a finitely differentiated "reduction" of
the absolute source.
Tell me, Marsha: Does Pirsig acknowledge DQ as the primary source? IS there
a primary source in the MoQ? If you can't answer this affirmatively, then
I would submit to you that the Quality hierarchy has no fundamental reality
and is merely a paradigm for experiential existence.
--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/
