Hi Ron, Perhaps there is another way to look at this. There are many forms of understanding. One could be to divide something up into multiple pieces like disassembling a car. One can understand the car in terms of something that gets you to where you want to go. Or a car could be understood in terms of its comfort.
There is no problem understanding God (if you are so inclined), where the problem lies, is in conveying that understanding to another. You cannot break it up into little pieces, it does not take you anywhere, but in terms of comfort, it may be understood. God represents a feeling. Once it is objectified, it becomes confusing to relate. Dynamic Quality can be dealt with in the same way. It is perceived as an awareness, such as the awareness of beauty. It is perfectly possible to "believe" in beauty. When the term indefinable is used, it simply means that Dynamic Quality cannot be surrounded and shaped by words. How would you define your first awareness into this world? Maybe WOW? Yes, it is all beliefs, you are right there. But the question is: does the belief add something to your life? Are there things which add more than others? There are levels of belief for the individual, and it is useful for sharing. In my opinion, of course, Mark On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:13:49 AM, "X Acto" <[email protected]> wrote: God, in my understanding of how it relates to the MoQ is a term used for those experiences which are not fully understood or understood at all. The MoQ uses the term Dynamic Quality. Stanford encylclopedia of philosophy states: "Contemporary analytic philosophers of mind generally use the term "belief" to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true. To believe something, in this sense, needn't involve actively reflecting on it: Of the vast number of things ordinary adults believe, only a few can be at the fore of the mind at any single time. Nor does the term "belief", in standard philosophical usage, imply any uncertainty or any extended reflection about the matter in question (as it sometimes does in ordinary English usage)." In this usage, it is not representative of the MoQ if we state that we "believe" in Dynamic quality. For, how can we say that what we do not undersatnd, is true? that which is indefinable? For a Pirsigian to "believe" in DQ is a contradiction in terms. Unless one is in some way, certain about uncertainty. Also, The MoQ's Pragmatic endeavor is the active reflective inquirey of our beliefs and how they are constructed. To state that this too is a belief is not really understanding what is meant by the term, is inquirey belief? does it make sense to equate the two? they seem to contradict to me. -Ron 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/
