Hello everyone On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:02 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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: Again, I would say that we are here to discuss the MOQ as outlined in LILA. Adding words changes the meaning of the MOQ and leads to confusion, sure. The MOQ is a metaphysics, not reality itself. If we constructed an encyclopedia of the world, everything could be labeled as static quality. The world as we define it is composed of intellectual patterns of value, or static quality. I see no need to designate it as "relatively" static since even change is static quality. Dynamic Quality is undefined, always new and unexpected. It is the preintellectual edge of reality. Dynamic Quality can be seen as synonymous with experience. Is that confusing? If so, how? > > > 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: There's nothing wrong with poking and prodding at the MOQ as long as we don't fundamentally change the meaning of it by adding words that only serve to confuse things. I have no expectations other than an intelligence discussion once in a while. If we each go off on our own little tangents then we risk losing sight of why we are here in the first place. Aren't we? > > > 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: I would enjoy discussing the annotations with you or anyone but not in the way you presented them. I don't think you quite understood the context behind the annotations as explained by Ant when he first presented them to the group. And I apologize if I get a little upset when I see Robert Pirsig's work being patronized. That is a failing of mine. I think he deserves more respect than you showed him. But that's just me. > > 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: I've always thought of fools and sages as twins. > > 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. Dan: Me too. > > > > >> 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? Dan: I prefer hamony over disharmony, thus my posting. If it helps promote hamony, then that is good. > > > I have no idea, dan. I'm just hummin' along And I am just trying to make it another mile down the road. Thank you, Dan 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
