Hi Dan, I see you have decided not to answer my reasonable questions. I understand that it may put you in a bind, since you will need to separate the intellectual experience from dynamic quality, which is difficult. We must not resort to Truths that you find in books such as Lila, and thus put Truth above Quality. Such truths are provisional and do not form a metaphysics. This is the trap that Plato fell into. Now, perhaps Pirsig would help pull one out of that hole, but Phaedrus certainly would not. He would leave us in that swamp and walk away shaking his head, saying you we simply do not understand.
But, to continue my attempt at understanding your interpretation of MoQ, I have provided another discussion to your comment below. > Dan: > > I don't think so. Conceptualization is the beginning of > intellectualization, yes. It is the realization of a potential pattern > emerging from Dynamic awareness. That is one reason why I never > cottoned to patterned/unpatterned being synonymous with > static/Dynamic. The expectation of a pattern isn't Dynamic Quality. > Confusion can arise if taken as so. > [Mark] You speak of the realization of a potential pattern emerging. While the verb tenses do not quite fit here, I understand from this that intellectualization is a process creating (or being subjected to) the dynamic transformation into static. I suppose that we realize such a pattern from dynamic quality through some power that we have, the "Staticlifyer" as it were. A static brain creating a static pattern, like a tree creating a static shadow from the dynamic sun. As such, this reification (if you will) is dynamic, and at some point we have to consider its product to be static. If it becomes static before it reaches the intellectual level, then we have to assume some unconscious process, where the intellect is a product, and works with static conceptions. This would put the act of thinking into a bubble where the dynamic is not felt. Am I correct so far? By this "true" division which you propose, the human brain is somehow separate from dynamic quality and is fed by it. I would have to ask you of the origins of such a separation and the process of separation. Information comes in, is converted to other information, and in the process, the new information is one which has been transformed into another type, the static. An analogy of what you propose could be a river. Our calling was then to create static quality in our heads, like a river creates a whirlpool? If the whirlpool is a static pattern which is fed by dynamic water, at what point do we come in to realize this, as something static, is this simply a temporal phenomenon? Or, is it something more than that? You still with me? I would suggest that we cannot put something into a static box, without a dynamic awareness of doing so. Another way to approach this, as I have posted in numerous posts, is to consider the whole thing dynamic, in a Zen way. This is not difficult since it would simply require to consider that a whirlpool is also a dynamic expression, and not something different. As such, intellectualization is a dynamic process all the way down, and has to be upheld dynamically to continue. The separation between the static and the dynamic is artificial, and we are intellectually aware of the dynamic as much as we are emotionally aware. The touching of something by our fingers is no different from the touching of it by our minds. You have not answered my probing question as to when, in your understanding of MoQ, the dynamic becomes static, and how it separates itself. I understand this is a tough subject, but surely someone with your intelligence has asked that question since it follows directly from your distinction between the two. It is important to probe into the consequences of a manner of thought. One can simply say that "it is so", but this is an incomplete metaphysics. It requires a divine intervention, something that we have considered for many, many years, as humans. To put Quality into the divine category does not get us anywhere The purpose of MoQ is to go beyond that by creating a system which appeals to reason. This sudden break between dynamic and static is similar to Ham's ontology of the negation of Essence. My question has always been, where does that power come from, and how does it create something different? More fundamentally, of course, is the question whether there needs to be something different (static v dynamic, or, differentiated v essence) that we can only dream about and not touch. Can we look farther into that process? I can only assume that you have reached somewhere over the last decade of discussion, and I simply ask that you impart that. These are not trick questions, simply ones that I am interested in. Thanks, Mark > 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
