Hi Ham, I am not sure of my getting responses. I have tried to stay out of the philosophology (or whatever) sections, and tried to stick with moving forward. This forum tends to relay through dictums which I have tried to harness for my own propaganda.
My intention in the last post was towards harmonization of concepts. The analogies may be weak at present, but they are just doorways. Often I find the term dynamic to be misleading since it gives the sense of promulgating change. However, as a foil to static it works to a degree. Dynamic Quality can be seen as both a backdrop to the world of "appearance", as well as a cause (if we use the cause-effect paradigm). Of importance, IMO, is the interplay between the two, since the relationship is not simply directional or one-way. That is, the static can cause the dynamic as well. For me, the concept of Quality represents the sum total analogy. It is then metaphysically divided up for discussion and advancement. Your debating is part of the process, otherwise this would be a history forum. I enjoy jousting with you. Mark On Oct 9, 2011, at 12:03 AM, "Ham Priday" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey, Mark -- > > >> First of all, thank you Ham, you are more eloquent than I. > > I appreciate the compliment, Mark. But if I am more eloquent, why do the > ideas you articulate get more response than mine? (On second thought, don't > bother; it's because that devil Ham is misconstruing the MoQ to promote his > own philosophy.) > >> The way in which Marsha uses static/dynamic is indeed prone to >> confusion. How about this analogy. The great ocean is deep. On its >> surface, there are waves which appear and then disappear. Our life >> here is brief, just another wave, but what is causing our waves lasts >> forever and is an integral part of us. So in this case, the dynamic >> represents potential (which is similar to your Essence), and our >> existence is the representation of such potential (your negation). >> With an understanding of Quality one can make inroads into a more >> meaningful existence. In fact, it can change one's whole daily >> behavior and attitude (gumption if you will). Does your belief in >> your metaphysics impact every moment of your daily life? > > Yes, I think belief in a transcendent Essence makes my life more meaningful > when it comes to understanding the purpose of human existence in terms of > man's need for spiritual fulfillment. > > You have posed the ocean/waves analogy before, and it would be a good > metaphor for Ultimate Reality/Existence. Unfortunately, since the "great > ocean" is static relative to the dynamic "surface waves", it would reverse > Pirsig's paradigm which makes reality "Dynamic Quality" and its ever-changing > patterns "static". > >> Or, how about this, a book is static, the story it tells is dynamic. >> There is a relationship between the static and the dynamic, and both >> interact like the Yin and the Yang. Quality is the Circle which >> encompasses, Value is the interface between the static and the >> dynamic. (don't know if this works quite right, but I will leave it >> in for discussion). And let's not forget the soul, which is the white >> paper upon which the words of the book are written. Life plays on >> one's soul like music fills silence. > > Again, Mark, I see the "book" as an analog for the immutable Source, and the > unfolding "story it tells" as dynamic existence. Also, I see no difference > between the "circle" of Quality and the "interface" of Value. (Didn't Pirsig > equate the two?) So your analogies are still problematic for me. > >> Yes, personal value is relative to the person. However, what is >> creating that value, exists beyond the person. You have a formula of >> double negation, I simply call it Quality. > > What is creating the value is the relation of the sensible agent (person) to > the whole (Essence). I describe Value as "the affinity of the self for its > estranged Essence". Negation works the other way; it divides the cognizant > agent from the essential Source to create difference, thus making possible > the autonomous realization of a range of finite values. > > Thanks for the analogies, Mark, even though they appear to be more useful for > my ontology than RMP's. > > Best, > Ham > >> >> Marsha, >> Dialectics. When Buddha stated there is no self, he is trying to move >> you away from your current belief, not saying that such a static >> concept is the way it is. This is the power of dialectics, finding >> the middle way. >> >> You have hung on to this ever-changing concept of Quality for some >> time now, I am waiting for the change in your belief since you claim >> to be ever-changing. The reason that you think things are changing is >> that you are stuck on static quality. You jump from one static thing >> to another and call that change. Based on where you are, I can say >> that Change does not exist in Quality. I would suggest that you >> consider the term "Ever-there" for a short break in your habits. >> >> Quality can not change, since there is no time for it to do so. That >> is, it exists outside of time. I will use the following example: All >> that you can experience is the ever-now. Even if you are having >> memories or planning for the future, that is done in the present. >> Such experience, which is Reality, happens in that timeless place, in >> the moment, not anywhere else, it can't. In the timeless moment, >> there is no change. The change you imagine is due to clinging to >> static qualities. Some things you seem to cling to more than others, >> those are the dangerous ones. >> >> To use time in the analogy, between every moment there is nothing. So, >> where are we between moments? How is it that you feel continuity in >> this existence? The Buddhists would say that you are being >> reincarnated at every moment. Thus your existence is preserved. Do >> you think this is possible, such reincarnation? Else-wise, how do you >> explain your seemingly continuous feeling of existence? >> >> Know Thyself, otherwise translated at "that thou art". I am not sure >> if you have read the book "The Perennial Philosophy" by a guy named >> Aldus Huxley. If not, give it a read, he can explain this better than >> I. What Socrates was stating is exactly the same thing that Buddha >> was stating. Hermes stated it long before either of them. Buddha's >> tact was to try to destroy the ego. Such ego is: believing we are our >> thoughts. Buddha did not try to destroy all the other things we are. >> This "No-Self" is directed at that voice in our heads to tame it. >> Once that is understood, one can still have existence of self, nothing >> changes there. Living in a world of no-self is like living in a world >> full of robots. >> >> The use of "No-Self" as a technique for awakening was fully developed >> in around 200 AD by Nagarjuna, as you know. This was not the only >> arrow in Buddha's trigger. His method for teaching changed depending >> on his student. But the technique was the same, and was one of >> dialectics. He would listen, and then present alternatives to counter >> act "false" beliefs. Socrates was said to have asked continual >> questions, with the same intent. That is, to educate towards meaning. >> >> Both of these people were just like you and me. They wanted to >> educate what they saw. The fact that such teachings have lasted a >> while emphasizes the kernel of a perennial form of thought. That is, >> a thought that has its roots way beneath the intellect (something that >> I call "deeper"), what some call the mythical. Our thoughts do not >> just arrive superficially when we are trying to communicate them >> within the social level. Our thoughts are much more expansive than >> the words which we put to them and are closer to emotions in nature >> (one point for Joe). On his deathbed, Buddha was said to have >> encouraged his followers to be free from words, for that is an easy >> way to be free and move towards Nirvana. Of course MoQ states the >> same thing as an underlying theme (static quality). >> >> So next time you present your Ever-Changing Theory, think about it, >> and move past it. >> >> All in my humble opinion, of course. >> >> Cheers, >> Mark > > 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
