Ron:
Arent we
> debating the intellectual meaning of the term as it functions within a larger
> philosophical system of thought?
Dan:
No, we are not. Now, I realize lots of people want to do just that, to
define Dynamic Quality in efforts to somehow get "closer" to it. And
yes, we are using Dynamic Quality as an intellectual term within the
framework of the MOQ. But that term should be kept free of all
concepts. Better to say "it" is "not this, not that."
Ron:
Isn't using an intellectual term that has no meaning, well, meaningless?
Why use it at all if it does not mean a thing? doesent this render it useless
in any sort of explanation?
That would then mean that all static patterns are a migration toward nothing.
toward meaninglessness. That means in every instatnce Pirsig speaks of
betterness and ethics and morality he is really pointing to nothing.
Why use those terms?
I see, that if we take DQ to mean nothing what so ever, or everything and
nothing
in particular then alot of what RMP states about reality being a moral order
doesent
make alot of sense. It negates the phrase "some things are better than others"
Dan can you help me to understand this? because when I read Lila, it supports
the concept of betterness.
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
