Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 7:15 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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?
Dan: I didn't say the term doesn't mean anything. Within the framework of the MOQ, Dynamic Quality points towards pre-intellectual awareness, or direct experience. Ron: > Why use it at all if it does not mean a thing? doesent this render it useless > in any sort of explanation? Dan: You seem to want Dynamic Quality to mean something intellectually. Only when you say, Dynamic Quality is this, and Dynamic Quality is that, you conceptualize it. You turn "it" into some thing that has intellectual meaning. >Ron: > 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. Dan: By starting out with the premise that Dynamic Quality is meaningless, you lead yourself astray. Within the MOQ, all static quality patterns are seen as migrating towards freedom from any static patterns, or Dynamic Quality. That sense of betterness and ethics and morality is a beginning response to Dynamic Quality. We feel "its" tug and those of us who are open enough follow it. I think most people though tend to cling to the static quality patterns they are familiar with and by which their lives are determined. Ron: > Why use those terms? Dan: To form a more complete understanding of reality. Ron: > 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. Dan: Again, keeping Dynamic Quality free of concepts doesn't translate into "it" meaning nothing. Dynamic Quality means everything. It is synonymous with experience. "It" is both undefined and infinitely definable, inexhaustible. We must take care though not to label "it" and give it intellectual meaning lest we turn "it" into merely an intellectual concept, which, of course, it is. Does this help at all? Thank you, Dan 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
