Dmb, You do enjoy talking to yourself, don't you?
On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:32 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > 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 ___ 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
