Hi Mark: On Dec 17, 2011, at 11:52 AM, 118 wrote:
> Hi Marsha, > Yes, they are both presentations of Quality. For the purposes of > metaphysical presentation they are separated as DQ and sq. this is what MoQ > is, and this is what this forum is about. If you choose not to discuss MoQ, > that is fine, but it does not help to short-circuit the metaphysics which > Pirsig presents. If you find no value in discussing DQ and sq as different, > then what kind of structure do you use for MoQ? It would seem that you are > not interested in MoQ. So, my question is: Do you think that the distinction > between DQ and sq is a useful presentation for discussion? If not, I will > not bother you with it. Marsha: Since I have presented my definition of static patterns of value and of the 'self' within the MoQ, it should seem obvious that I find it useful. Static patterns of value are processes: conditionally co-dependent, impermanent, ever-changing and conceptualized. (Not independent objects, subjects or things-in-themselves.) Ever-changing processes that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern. These patterns are categorized into a four-level, evolutionary, hierarchical structure: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. The “self” is a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent, static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. These definitions, though, do not alter my understanding that static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality. This is what I experience, take it or leave it. Marsha > > Thanks > > Sent laboriously from an iPhone, > Mark > > On Dec 16, 2011, at 7:40 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> For me, static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality. But, of course, >> that is based as much on experience as what I've read & how I've understood >> and integrated that understanding. There were no questions within your post >> so thanks for responding. >> >> >> Marsha >> >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Dec 16, 2011, at 5:07 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Marsha, >>> I am glad that it has been established for you. Personally I do not >>> see Quality as being the same thing as Emptiness, but, of course, we >>> each have our own realities. DQ is a subset of Quality and is created >>> for the purposes of presentation. In this sense DQ is not the same as >>> Quality, and both cannot be considered Emptiness in the same way. I >>> suppose from this Pirsigian metaphysical division of DQ and sq, DQ >>> would be one form of Emptiness according to you and Anthony. Since >>> Quality can never be defined and can only be represented, each >>> representation may be different. I suppose the usefulness comes in as >>> to what this vision does for one. >>> >>> The term Emptiness also has different connotations to each person and >>> can never be presented as dogmatic. Not having inherent existence is >>> one of a number of possible presentations. It is interesting that in >>> your quote the author states that Emptiness is "beyond the common >>> worldly understanding", which implies it lies within an "uncommon >>> worldly understanding". Perhaps that is what I have. >>> >>> Thank you for your response, I am still learning what people "see" in >>> terms of Quality. >>> >>> 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
