Andre,
In the MoQ Texbook Anthony writes that the fundamental nature of the static is
the Dynamic:
"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, Anthony, 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF
QUALITY')
Marsha
On Jul 19, 2011, at 3:04 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Dave T to dmb:
>
> 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.
>
> Andre:
> Excuse me for butting in Dave but we have gone over this before. In fact Arlo
> made some points about this a while ago as well relating to his motorbike. Of
> course that changes over time. Of course it has changed from when Arlo went
> into the pub, had a drink and then came out again. But the bike was still
> recognisable as being his own. Leave it in the weather for a number of years
> and yeah, the changes are noticeable because dynamic influences occur at
> subatomic levels all the time. But for pragmatic reasons the notion of using
> 'ever changing' when you mean 'stable' or 'static' is confusing because
> misleading.
>
> And this is the point that dmb tries to make. What I sketched above are
> dynamic forces in conflict with stable forces, in this case at the organic
> level. The DQ/sq interplay.
>
> When Marsha uses this 'ever changing' stuff with regards to static patterns
> she uses it in the sense of precisely that: ever changing. Marsha does not
> accept a difference between DQ and sq. For her these are interchangeable. Now
> this, from a MOQ point of view is plain silly and very confusing and she
> continues to wriggle herself around it.
>
> You're one step away from nihilism when you continually claim that ultimately
> all is an impermanent illusion anyway. I mean, why bother? In 50 years we'll
> all be dead so what are we arguing about? It is so defeatist and kills
> discussion all the time. Perhaps you can appreciate the silliness of this
> stance.
>
> Or do you agree with Marsha that DQ is sq and sq is DQ?
>
>
> 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
