dmb, I do not consider DQ to be change. I see it as indeterminate, as unknowable, undefinable, and undividable, or as unpatterned.
Marsha On Jul 18, 2011, at 8:02 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Dave T. asked dmb: > A cloud is ever changing but it is stable enough a pattern for most sane > people to acknowledge they're there. Let's try a tree. Even though it is > pretty still, the leaves and branches on one I'm looking at now are gently > moving. Would you please name for me just one of these so called "static > patterns" that does not physically change position moment to moment over time? > > dmb says: > Your question assumes that static patterns are not static when they involve > physical movement. But physical motion and Dynamic Quality are not the same > thing. Pirsig pointed that out in response to a question at least once, I'm > sure of it. And it only stands to reason. The earth's rotation and orbit are > both static patterns. Stability does not mean a lack of movement. For > biological creatures, a lack of movement means death. The MOQ is, among other > things, a kind of process philosophy and this is perfectly compatible with > static patterns and stable structures because that's exactly what exists AS a > process. Mountains rise and are worn away. Stars are born and eventually die. > But they will still appear as symbols of solid ground and eternal promise in > our poetry. And rightly so. Millions or billions of years of existence is > enough stability for any human purpose. > > > Dave T asked: > How is it that "ever-changing" is a such a problem? Oh I know Pirsig > attributes all change to Dynamic Quality: Could it be that he was/is wrong? > Not if you fancy yourself to be a MoQ priest. > > > dmb says: > Well, yea. That's the problem. Ever-changing is a great term if you're > talking about DQ, but Marsha is using it to describe the opposite term. > I'd guess she means to say that static patterns are "changeable" or > "mutable", not EVER-changing. I'd guess she really just wants to deny that > static patterns are fixed or eternal, that they are subject to change, that > they can evolve and that sort of thing. But this is described as static > latching. It's a step by step, clicking sort of analogy because novel > improvements are built on previous improvements. We need the quality of order > and stability to continue ratcheting up. That's what Pirsig means when he > says you can't live on DQ alone. Without the stability of static patterns, > you don't get freedom. You just get chaos and degeneration. > And Marsha''s definition is not only contradictory, it also turns the stable > half of the MOQ into the ever-changing half. You get DQ on one side and > ever-changing impermanence on the other. And the result is pure chaos. It's > vacuous nihilism. > > > > > > > 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
