Hi Mark and Ron, To me it is interesting that we are still on MOQ Discuss talking about the first division of the MOQ so long after Lila was written when I see no real ambiguity in what Pirsig has written. Yes it is hard to understand because it is not what anyone has ever used before; but it describes reality beautifully and really can improve ones life.
If you are 'conceiving' of something, is that not some 'thing', therefore some thing static? The MOQ is static quality. It is a bunch of ideas. The concepts of Dynamic Quality and static quality are separate static ideas. What Dynamic Quality and static quality have in common is right there in their name. But Dynamic Quality itself is not some thing it is no thing. Yes? No? On Thursday, 24 March 2011 at 10:53 AM, X Acto wrote: > Mark: > > Hi Ron, > The quote you provide by Pirsig may be a necessary premise for MoQ, or > maybe not. The fact that DQ and SQ are inexorably linked is due to > definition. Such linkage is formed through human experience and the > rhetorical devide of the two. However, depending on one's definition, > it is possible to conceive of a DQ without SQ, but not the other way > around. So, I would temper your moral victory here as well. > > Ron: > Hello Mark, > Are not all concepts static? > > To concieve of SQ without DQ is objectivism is'nt it? > > Moral victory? no > > A continuos explanation with an eye toward the expansion of reason, yes. > > > > 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
