Hi David, I would have to disagree that the division is something new. It has long been known in Taoism and various forms of Buddhism. Perhaps the rhetoric is particularly modern and somewhat misleading by the term Quality. Certainly if you find meaning it will improve your life. Unfortunately the meaning as expressed is difficult to convey as you will notice from the posts. The rhetoric is lacking and incomplete leaving much up to the imagination. This can be good, but a metaphysics cannot deal with undefined things, that is called religion.
The act of conceiving occurs in the moment (the sub-nanosecond scale), therefore it is dynamic. The ever present is dynamic isn't it? Is it after you are done conceiving that it becomes static? If so, when are you ever done conceiving, when you are dead? Even if the concept is the same, it is still happening in the present. Thoughts are misconstrued as static but they happen actively, that is about as close to dynamic quality as one can get. It is this perception that somehow we live in the past tense that leads to an incorrect postulate of the static. Objects are an appearance of dynamic Quality, they do not contain quality in themselves, but express it. There are no patterns of quality, such a thing does not make sense, a pattern is formed in one's head. We cannot present Quality in a materialist manner as you rightly point out, but it can be analogized. This was done several thousand years ago with Tao. Perhaps this doesn't make much sense to you, but it is dynamic quality at its core. Once MoQ is realized, this is where it leads. Now that is meaningful. All one has to do is connect the dots. Thanks for your post. Cheers, Mark On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:45 PM, David Harding <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > 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
