Hi Andre, On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]> wrote: > Mark to Andre: > > I am not sure if preserve is the correct term here. > > Andre: > Actually, Mark I was using Pirsig's own terminology (not that this carries > much weight anymore for some on this discuss). He was saying that: 'Static > quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind > obedience and suppress Dynamic change.(for example: religious > dogma)'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, p 124)( for example: the maintenance workers; they fix > things, replace parts, sometimes requiring a complete overhaul, they > preserve existing patterns through Dynamic intervention... until something > better comes along and the entire pattern is changed. This may involve some, > or all the levels).
Well, I would have to ask you what you mean by preserve. As you used it, it was inappropriate in my opinion. Pirsig does bring up a Yin Yang analogy to help explain what he means by Quality. Of course neither can survive since that is the premise he creates when he makes the division. If he did not make this division, then we would have nothing to talk about. If we agree that this distinction is appropriate, then we move on. If what you mean by preserve, is, for the analogy to stand you need both, well, duh.> > Mark: > With his division, Pirsig is able to convey the difference between change, > and what the change is acting on. In this way they are very different > concepts. It would be like discussing the continents and plate tectonics. > Obviously the two are not the same. > > Andre: > Not sure what you're getting at here Mark. Pirsig convey's the difference > between static quality and Dynamic Quality. I don't know anything about > tectonics but 'continents' are in/organic patterns of value and the theory > of tectonics (continental drift?) is an intellectual explanation of their > birth, movement and disappearance.(?) [Mark] I am getting at the same thing that Pirsig is getting at. We divide Quality up into the static and dynamic. They are different by definition. My analogy was meant to illustrate this point, nothing more. I am not sure why you need to bring in the term "intellectual explanation". All we are posting on is an intellectual explanation, so what? I was not pointing to the levels, we were discussing the primary division in MoQ. We can get to the levels to if you wish, which I believe are misinterpreted by many. > > Mark: > If the intent was to present a static metaphysics in its complete form, he > would have called it the Metaphysics of Quality, but he did not. > > Andre: > Duh? Pirsig's MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value, and as such is > provisional. You do know what LILA means? [Mark] What do you mean by provisional? Everything is provisional, duh. The pattern is continually changing depending on who is doing the thinking. Even the way in which the pattern is changing, is changing. Even this change is changing. That fact that things are changing is changing. Change is not static, it is dynamic. Having said this, however, in the present, nothing is changing. In the present moment, which is what we live in, there is not change. Change is a static pattern, if you will. We live in dynamic quality, at every moment, and it is not dynamic by any means, that is just an analogy to help explain what Pirsig is talking about. He was even involved with a Zen temple, this should explain a lot to you. What I was pointing at was the intention of the book. According to Dan, Lila was just a name that Pirsig thought was interesting. Are you referring to Lila as it is used in vedic scripture? As far as I can see, Lila was used by Pirsig as a tool to present his inquiry. Is there something more to it? Is the acronym important? Please explain I am most interested. > > Mark: > Certainly Lila can serve as a guide for many, but strict adherence to the > words was not the intent of this philosophical musing, in my opinion...This > forum provides the platform for further questioning along the same lines as > presented. > > Andre: > Agree completely. It is 'a finger pointing to the moon' as the saying goes. > I just try to keep 'the moon' in mind and not anything else. [Mark] Me too. Cheers, Mark > > > > > 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
