Hi Mark, I doubt if I'll ever rock.
I concede that all rhetoric is value of the static kind. Even so, I do not understand the hostility towards my statement. It allows for endless rhetorical (static) evaluation and categorization while maintaining the MoQ as a monism. Marsha On Mar 29, 2011, at 12:59 AM, 118 wrote: > 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
