Hi Marsha, I can appreciate value in your expression of a continuum, if it provides meaning for you. The divide between the static and the dynamic is meant to help explain Quality. Often I interpret the dichotomy through some of the Buddhist rhetoric. Instead of static implying temporal or conceptual encapsulation, I use the word static as in static electricity. When I remove my socks from the dryer, they tend to cling together. From this I imagine the clinging which is spoken of in Buddhism. We create impressions which have meaning to us, and they cling to us (or visa versa). Often these creations become so dominant that we get lost and bewitched by them. This is not to say that they are unreal, but perhaps misleading, as Mara tends to do. Misleading in the sense that they remove free will and create dependency. It stresses the phenomenal over the numenal and results in imbalance. By his rhetoric, Pirsig describes both as being necessary for a conceptual framework, and not rhetorically the same. Energy and mass may be the same, but it may not be useful to treat them as such.
If dynamic quality leaves static quality in its wake, I can envision a comet streaking through the cosmos. The head is the burning present, and the debris (the tail) is the reminding past. One leaves the other behind; one is a creator, the other is the created. One can appreciate the dynamic as that which creates the static. By this analogy, there does seem to be a difference between the two, not necessarily in make-up, but in purpose. If we distill the essence of the dynamic and the static, they could be considered very different as the painter is from the painting. Both can rhetorically depict Quality as an interplay, like a conductor bringing forth music, and then dancing as it is played, ever advancing together. Having said that, it may not be misleading to state that both are the same, and appropriate rhetoric can be used to bring forth this vision in a metaphysical arena. If pointing that way provides a clear path, and a meaningful perspective, then you rock. Thanks, Mark On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:57 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Check out page 102 of Anthony's Textbook; third paragraph. It is not > comparing the MoQ with Buddhism, but states clearly "Nagarjuna shares > Pirsig's perception" that the DQ (the indeterminate) is the fundamental > nature of static quality (the conditiioned). (Please note the primary > emphasis is on RMP's perception.) > > And boys, I'm not playing tag-team. > > > Marsha > > > > > > 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
