> Dan comments: > > I see nothing here about permanence, absolute, or the truly static. In > fact, RMP goes to great pains throughout LILA explaining how both > Dynamic and static are needed. Experience is seen as synonymous with > Dynamic Quality. Static quality is the memory of that Dynamic > experience. >
John: I agree that there is nothing about absolute staticity. So we must mean "relatively static" whenever we use the term, for we understand that there is no such thing as any static thing. There is only dynamic then the relatively static. Because everything changes. So what does "dynamic" mean in this context? To my perception, it just means things are changing a little faster than expected. The ocean erodes the coast through normal times, slowly enough to allow beach houses and laws of real estate significance. But when the waters come all in a rush, a quicker time frame than expected, a storm of wind or water, then we think of the same erosive and natural forces as "dynamic" and sudden and exciting. But that'a all from a merely human perspective, and thus no fundamental divide at all. So I guess I'm glad the subject came up, as I'm sincerely confused about the definition of 'Static". You wouldn't think that would be such a problem, but sometimes its harder to define what makes the definite definiable, than the undefined indefinable. dan: > > I am unsure why, but as long as John has been here he's been seemingly > intent on discrediting the work of Robert Pirsig without showing any > sense that he actually understands that work. John: Well I'm sorry to think you feel that way dan. I certainly disagree with your imputation. I believe in questioning and probing poking and prying, into the logical constructions of a metaphysical system, and I admit I don't perform this method according to your nor anybody else's expectations or control. Horse lets me hang out, and I say what I think. RMP's writings changed my life. No doubt about it. But if he did anything else for me, he made me a thinker. Somebody who's going to have to have it all figured out and explained so it fits together for me, and while I never had any problems with one word of either ZAMM or Lila, I do take exception to some of the construals and propositions and attitudes it has produced, right here, on this very moq_discuss. But honestly, nothing in my reading of Pirsig's writings has ever given me anything other than the one perfect perception that the greatest danger the human race faces, is if people forget how to think for themselves. Without statically latching onto any dogma, system or trap. That's not something I should have to explain to anybody who actually has read them two books, so I guess that's just a redundancy we'll all have to live with. I know you have. Just to make it clear then, I have too. dan: > He mocked RMP's > Copleston annotations. John: the only point I can remember "mocking", I was provoked. I felt he gave short shrift to Coleridge's postulation of the fundamentalness of the Will. This is a big point with me - free will and Quality. You can't have Qualioty if you got no Choice. I think Coleridge made that point. I think Pirsig dismissed it flippantly and I pointed out my opinion in my own inimitable style, in the great hopes that my outrageous verbiage would be responded to. Eventually. So thanks for that, dan. Anyway. dan > Maybe to prove he was more intelligent than > RMP? John: I'm smart enough to know not to pull out a tape measure when you're talking about things of worth. Other than that, I can't say really. I know this much, people who are pretty stupid think I'm smart and people who are smart think I'm kinda stupid - but they enjoy my compnay anyway. Does that make you happy? I don't know what to say to your charge except "no". dan: > He insisted on introducing Royce's Absolute as equivalent to > Dynamic Quality when it clearly isn't by any stretch. > > John: It was made obvious to me that that debate wasn't going anywhere so I dropped it. But I feel deeply indebted to Pirsig for helping me to find Royce. But then, I'm deeply indebted to him for introducing me to lots of fine people, dan. you included. > I like John so please don't take this as mean-spirited. I do tend to > get irritated though that as intelligent as he is he just doesn't seem > to get it. But maybe that's his game. Maybe I am just being played. > Who knows? > > Thank you, > > I guess in some way we all play ourselves and each other. The only question remains, is it a good tune, or a disharmonious one? I have no idea, dan. I'm just hummin' along 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
