[Krimel] You are not alone in seeing it this way but I think that view is confused. Static and Dynamic are the way that Quality is manifest. They are two sides or rather two polls of a continuum. They are opposites that reveal particular manifestations of Quality.
Andre: So for you it is: Quality/Dq/SQ and not (as Pirsig would have it) DQ/SQ? [Krimel] I don't think Yin and Yang have much to do with subject and object except as S/O may be understand as its own continuum. Andre: This is what I mean by the 'loaded' stuff that subjects and objects 'carry' within a metaphysical/ philosophical framework. They are not two separate 'entities'. In this sense I agree with you that they are two 'sides'...'poles' of static manifestations within themselves as well as within the continuum of Quality. [Andre] In MoQ: DQ (Tao) / SQ (Yin/Yang). [Krimel] But see what you have achieved? You have removed Quality from the Metaphysics of Quality. Not only does this strike me as absurd in and of itself; but it also makes the adjective "dynamic" meaningless. And for what purpose? Andre: I am mere adhering to Pirsig's own division of Quality here (Lila, p119): DQ/SQ. Are you suggesting that Pirsig hasn't written his own MoQ properly? Krimel: It is what you make static out of the Heraclytian river. It is what we share via language....It is abstractions from the flux... We need conceptual static patterns to filter and capture meaning from the flux around us. Indra's net is a living thing. It either catches and make meaning from the flow or it changes in response to it. Andre: And it is in this process, when language became 'separated' from its social 'use' and turned into intellect's toy/manipulative 'use' (that language was not anything but a direct communication but that it only conveyed 'meaning' to be further analysed later) that talking about our direct/immediate experience was not to be considered 'real' but merely a conceptualisation and that we need philosophers/ psychologists/ psychiatrists/ anthropologists to tell us what our experience REALLY means. I do think you may think I speak a lot of bull here Krimel, but this is a real problem for me. Language as a social pattern of value has been 'distorted'/ abused by intellect to represent something totally different from the way it was originally intended, from its origins. Its origins was not to convey 'meaning'! It was to communicate directly. 'Hey, fellow caveman,... raging bull...RUN!!'. The fellow caveman did not stop and ask what he meant...he RAN!! Krimel: I think the view you are espousing represents what I consider to be the Zen corruption of the MoQ. That something is undefined does not mean it is not or cannot be understood in some way at some level. Andre: With all respect Krimel "A large part of the MoQ is based on Oriental mysticism" (Pirsig, On the Road DVD) and Pirsig is a Zen follower/practitioner. Pirsig has defined Quality as GOOD. As you say: The way of Virtue. I'm not sure Krimel but I think we both aim towards the same thing. It's just that we are using a different language and a different path to explain where we are at this moment. Regards Andre 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/
