Ho Andre, Down to my last or close to last, unfinished business.
> Andre: > Well, this does make a heck of a difference John. To equate 'in all of > experience' with 'in the entire universe' or 'all of creation' it seems to > me you are also, like Marsha equating DQ with sq. Are they, for you > interchangeable a well? Just to be clear about what the MOQ is saying is > that the experience comes first. Ideas/conceptualizations of 'universe' and > 'creation' are abstracted afterwards as stable intellectual patterns of > value. > > John: Well first off, I should say that I differentiate between "all potential experience" and "all personal experience". The Universe is the former, not the latter. Second, I don't equate DQ and sq, but make the point that the only true differentiation between the terms is a subjective perspective, not a metaphysical absolute. And I'm not sure how this agrees with Marsha. > > John: > > The dynamic nature of all reality is not a fallacy, Andre. It's just the > way things are. What I call fallacy is the rigid constructions of > small-minded control freaks who want to freeze conceptualizations and keep > them in their hip pocket and beat others over the head with their > homophiliac urges. > > Andre: > 'Homophiliac urges'?, 'small-minded control freaks'?, 'freeze > conceptualizations'? woaw, those are a mouthful John.. hope you liked > spouting and swallowing it as well. > John: Well, some two weeks later and in retrospect, I have to confess - Whew! I was in some kind of mood when I wrote that! I'll confess to getting rhetorically carried away at times. But you already knew that. Andre: > > You know that Pirsig equates Quality with Reality, with experience. Yes, > this is dynamic, undifferentiated, mystical. > He makes the first metaphysical slice thus; DQ/sq. Pirsig recognizes that > the world, i.e our conventional reality, manifests elements of both the > static and the Dynamic: > 'Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand > blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, > nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic > progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of > freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static > quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor > Dynamic Quality can survive without the other'. (LILA, p124) > > John: So, when a static pattern is fully static, it is dead - meaning, not-living, not changing, not growing or advancing, right? In essence, that's just what I've been saying. Andre: > The 'dynamic nature of all reality' is a fallacy John. If it is only > dynamic it degenerates. John: You are clinging too hard to stasis, by what you are saying here. What is "degeneracy" but change and growth from a different perspective? And we seem to be discussing static and dynamic only on the subject levels (social/intellectual) where we ought to be looking at the terms fundamentally as the division of ALL reality. Andre: > You must have stability i.e. sq to preserve advances/insights gained. > Needles to say I mean everyday, lived reality: DQ/sq. > > Hope the truck you're gonna drive is composed of stable patterns. > > A piston that freezes in one place is a BAD piston and the purpose of a truck is to keep things (goods) flowing, not staying in one place. John the honker 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
