Mark,
I know you've said you do not have access to the MoQ Text book, so I will present the quote one more time: "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static:. In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness and contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is revealed by also saying that all things ultimately enter the indeterminate dharma or that within the heart of every conditioned entity (as its core, as its true essence, as its very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate reality, the other speaks of its immanence. The one says that the ultimate reality is not an entity apart and wholly removed from the determinate, but is the real nature of the determinate itself. Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate truth (paramattha-sacca)." (McWatt,f Anthony, 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY', P. 102) My interpretation is as much based on my experience as what I've read. - Within Buddhism, in the Heart Sutra, it states that “Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Form is not different than emptiness; emptiness is not different than form.” And in spite of this statement, there is still reams written discussing the 'conventional' or conditioned, and 'Ultimate' or indeterminate, as different. While the MoQ is not a form of Buddhism, because of the similarities between the static & the conventional and the Dynamic & the Ultimate it is interesting to consider and then research through ones own experience. I think the fact that DQ is the fundamental nature of sq should be considered. In fact, I do believe RMP states, in the Oxford dvd, that the rational and mystical sides of the MoQ can both be discussed . --- Do you like Tilsit? Marsha On May 15, 2011, at 10:12 AM, 118 wrote: > Hi Marsha, > > Yes, I have heard these pronouncements coming from you. I find them > to be somewhat destructive of MoQ, and while they may seem expansive, > they may not be. > > Both sq and DQ are Quality, that does not logically mean that they are > each other. The purpose for dividing Quality up is to provide meaning > to the reader. Quality is divided into subunits for rhetorical > reasons by MoQ. Such division is typical of metaphysics and helps > promote the discussion. By definition, the two components are > considered to be different attributes of Quality in the realm of > discussion. This then leads the reader to further thinking and > discussion. To short-circuit the division by equating the two does > not provide much to the discussion. I have said that everything could > be considered to be Cheese. This could be a line of discussion, but > it provides very little meaning. > > Therefore, in the spirit of MoQ, we use these terms as different > concepts. To say that they "is" each other is not a valid statement > within MoQ, in my opinion. It is a synthesis that leads nowhere in > terms of MoQ construction. > > Just my two cents. I have no problem with you making such statements, > but I see no use in them in terms of MoQ. > > Cheers, > Mark > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:20 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Mark, >> >> I could continue: Static quality is Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is >> static quality. Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality. Dynamic >> Quality is not other than static quality. >> >> Is that too much to add? That is how I've seen it. That is my >> experience/interpretation. Too Buddhist? >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> >> On May 12, 2011, at 10:01 PM, 118 wrote: >> >>> Hmmm Marsha, >>> That's an awful lot of definitions. >>> Mark >>> >>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:59 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 12, 2011, at 10:14 AM, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: >>>> >>>>> [Marsha] >>>>> Ever-changing but within a stable, predictable pattern. >>>>> >>>>> [Arlo] >>>>> Ever-changing (DQ) and giving rise to stable, predictable patterns (SQ). >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> For me, Dynamic Quality is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. >>>> Static patterns of value are processes: impermanent, interdependent, >>>> ever-changing. No subjects. No objects. Not things-in-themselves. >>>> Overlapping, interconnected, ever-changing processes that pragmatically >>>> tend to persist and change in a stable, predictable pattern. >>>> >>>> >>>> ___ >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 ___ 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
