Andre said:
... But for pragmatic reasons the notion of using 'ever changing' when you mean
'stable' or 'static' is confusing because it's misleading"... I should also
have added the 'forces' of regeneration, the stabilizing quality to latch the
advances made. It is these repeated patterns that make them stable,
recognizable. To add to the confusion Marsha has gotten herself into is that
she now denies DQ as being change. She says: "I consider DQ to be indeterminate
- unknowable, undefinable, and undividable - unpatterned". Now, on its own this
is a bit more like it. BUT she still considers DQ=sq and sq=DQ. She has said so
repeatedly.
dmb says:
That's exactly how I see it. That's what I was getting at when I pointed out
that genuinely paradoxical ideas are subtle and profound, whereas weasel-wordy
equivocations are neither subtle nor profound. They're meaningless. She
presents quotes from Ant's work and other scholars that talk about the
paradoxical relationship between DQ and sq as if they were evidence for her
claims, which are NOT paradoxical. Her claims are simply contradictory nonsense.
In answer to a question, Pirsig qualified the idea that static quality is
derived from DQ. He said that actually DQ is definable. We define it all the
time but as soon as you do it is no longer DQ. It's static. And these two parts
of experience are always working together. DQ is supposed to be present at the
cutting edge of every moment, after all, and as soon as it comes, as James puts
it, it soon fills itself with the nouns, verbs and adjectives of our conceptual
order.
He also talks about this paradox in terms of enlightenment. When you're halfway
there, which is known as 180 degree enlightenment because you've only completed
half of the circle, static quality is seen as an illusion from which we should
escape and DQ is the only thing that is ultimately real. But then 360 degree
enlightenment is when you come all the way back around because you now see that
static quality is not an illusion after all. Static pattens, so to speak,
become transparent to the DQ from which they were derived in the first place.
You can look right through them to see the DQ at their heart.
This paradoxical idea does not eradicate the distinction between static and
Dynamic. In fact, this distinction becomes even MORE important as the
explanation of their relationship to each becomes more subtle and more
profound. To simply reverse of confuse the differences between the two is worse
than useless. It destroys the subtlety and profundity of the relationship.
To blur, confuse or reverse the meaning of the key terms is destructive no
matter what the topic is. Imagine the issue was teen motherhood and somebody
was reversing the meaning of the terms "pregnant" and "virgin". People wouldn't
just be confused by that, they'd probably be alarmed, shocked and horrified at
the things being said by such an abuser of the language. And the problem is
even more complicated when using the central terms of a larger system of
thought like the MOQ, wherein precision is even more crucial.
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
