Thank you, very, very much, Marsha. Really excellent! > > On Jul 24, 2010, at 3:56 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > dmb said to Marsha: > > Part of the problem is that you define static patterns as ever- > changing. That's like defining stable to mean unstable. It's just > plainly wrong. There is DQ and there is sq and "ever-changing" is a > good description of just one of them and it isn't the latter. There is > a 50-50 chance of getting that right but you blew it. > > > > Marsha replied: > > Think about patterns. They are not individual independent things. > They are value events. Some patterns are repeated millions of times. > Each event is slight different dependent on an individual's unique > history and the immediate dynamic experience. When I state patterns > are ever-changing that is what I mean. The static event has a > beginning, a middle and an end, and each static event is different. > They are ever-changing. Depending of the circumstances, a pattern > may be broad or tight. It can be so much more or so much less than a > dictionary definition, but SOM needs exact definition, intellect > desires exact definition, and they are related. This is why I > understand the MoQ to be beyond intellectual patterns, and like QP > beyond common sense and beyond language. I believe RMP to have given > us the MoQ in an intellectual form because it is all he had available, > BUT he is pointing beyond what an intellectual pattern can express. > > > > dmb says: > > > > Look, that's exactly what I was complaining about. You're > > describing static quality in terms of "events" and as "ever- > > changing". But that's how Pirsig characterizes dynamic quality. > > Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. > That is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable!!! > > > > There is static and dynamic and you need BOTH. > > Of course! > > > > There is the value of order and stability and then there is > > freedom and growth. You're taking all the order and stability > > out of the MOQ > > Certainly I am not taking all the order and stability out of the MoQ. > Patterns are stable patterns, they are not ossified into objects. They > are patterns. > > > > and since the MOQ is itself a set of static intellectual patterns, > > this destabilizes the meanings and definitions that make up the > > MOQ. > > At the moment the MoQ is not a very stable pattern. The pattern > of belief that things independently exist in an external world is a > very stable pattern. The MoQ is a new intellectual pattern, and its > growth and longevity is yet to be determined. We hope! > > > > That's not really relativism. It's more like intellectual vandalism. > > Look, maybe your Blarney is useful in everyday banter, but it is > misplaced in philosophy. It is distracting commentary, and not > useful in explaining or trying to understand. > > > > DQ is rightly characterized as an event, a process, as the ongoing > > flux of life. This is CONTRASTED with the static patterns of quality > > which are derived from this cutting edge of experience. Static > intellectual > > truth are provisional. They evolve, sometimes quickly and sometimes > > over the course of centuries. But that doesn't mean they are ever- > changing. > > I don't mean they transform into something different, but they > are patterns, p-a-t-t-e-r-n-s. Gravity is a pattern of value. If I > asked a scientist to write down all he could on the subject of > gravity and asked you to write down all you can on the subject > of gravity, they would be different, but they would both be bits > and pieces of the gravity pattern. You might both write very > different explanations but both of you might be correct. A > pattern is not limited to finite definition. Patterns can be > amorphous and still be stable. > > > > It just means they evolve and develop. "Provisional" truths > > exists presently and function as truths precisely because > > they are stable and ordered and they are open to revision > > at some later time if and when such a revision is warranted. > > I agree. Presently and in memory. > > > > I mean, to say truth is provisional does not mean that it's > > fluid or in flux. > > It is amorphous. I bet there are aspects of gravity you do not know, > or > have forgotten and may be remembered at another gravity pattern > event. > > > > Static concepts need a certain level of stability or they can't > > function as concepts. > > I agree. > > > > That's why they're called STATIC patterns. They're ordered > > and stable and finite. > > They are not finite! Finite would be a thing-in-itself. Patterns > are repeated or memorized events or processes. Habit. > > > > This is not a problem and is actually quite necessary. > > Ordered and stable is not a problem; finite IS a problem. > > > > It's only a problem is these stable tools become rigid and > > inflexible and not open to revision. > > Then drop the word finite. > > > > Otherwise, intellectual static patterns are the most evolved, > > most open to dynamic change and the most moral level of all. > > I agree. > > > > If you construe the MOQ in such a way that this highest level of > > static quality is undermined and destabilized, the cause of freedom > > and growth has also been undermined. > > No need to exaggerate ever-changing into an absolute absurdity. Nor > exaggerate relative truths into an absolute absurdity, either. In the > MoQ, > truths are relative. At least that's how it was stated in Ant's > treatise. I am > not talking about moral relativity, but epistemological relativity. > > > > > > That's one reason why we need definitions and concepts and words to > > make sense and add up. > > I agree, but I take these to be provisional and pragmatically useful. > > > > This is the highest species of static good, not something to be > undermined > > or demonized or conflated with the disease from which it suffers. > > I have not sat through so many lectures on QP, for my health. I agree > with > you that intellectual static patterns of value are the highest species > of the good > as long it is understood that this remain provisional, patterns, not > finite > objects and independent self. > > > > When Pirsig says that thinking takes you away from reality, he's > saying that > > static patterns take you away from DQ. > > No disagreement here. But thinking takes you away from unpatterned > experience, which is something worth experiencing first-hand. > Thinking and talking about unpatterned experienced is not even close. > > > > He's saying there is a difference between concepts and DQ, not that > > concepts are evil things to be gotten rid of. > > I have never said concepts are evil. I have never said intellectual > patterns are evil. Never! I might say that to stop thoughts is > mediation > and a good thing, and meditation is a tried and true technique to move > towards becoming awakened/enlightened. And I might say that > we think too much and take our thoughts too seriously. And I might > say that lessons learned by 'not this, not that' are infinitely better. > > > > He's just saying that concepts are derived from something too rich > and > > thick and overflowing and fluid to be captured. > > I have no is some kind of personal description that I cannot relate to. > > > > Concepts are taken from experience the way a bucket of water can be > > taken from a continuously flowing river. It doesn't represent the > river so > > much as it isolates some small finite portion. As the bucket's wall > puts > > borders around a small part of the river, a concept puts borders > around > > a small portion of experience. The river and the bucket are both full > of > > water and so they are not ontologically distinct. > > Nothing new here... Stated in every entry-level Buddhist text. > There's > more to understand. > > > > So it is with concepts. They are derived from quality and they are > quality, > > the difference being that one is dynamic and the other is static. > > > > Static is good. Stale is bad. Dynamic is good. Degenerate is bad. > It's about > > balance, see, and your reading puts these two out of balance. > > > > > Thank you very, very much Dave. > > > Marsha > ___ > > > 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/md/archives.html
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/md/archives.html
