Greetings Dan,
I was using the starry night sky and the constellation as a metaphor. If you I didn't present it clearly, please ask a followup question. Marsha. On Mar 18, 2012, at 3:24 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mar 18, 2012, at 2:46 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everyone >> >>> On Mar 18, 2012, at 5:16 AM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be >>>> described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions >>>> emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. >>>> So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable >>>> and undefinable because definition never exhausts it." >>>> (Lila's Child) >>>> >>>> "Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the >>>> indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned >>>> (or static)..." >>>> (MoQ Textbook) >>>> >>>> "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Form is not other than emptiness; >>>> emptiness is not other than form." >>>> (Heart Sutra) >>>> >>>> Marsha: >>>> Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality; Dynamic Quality is not >>>> other than static quality. >>>> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Dan: >>>>>>> Seeing static patterns of quality as ever-changing >>>>>>> and impermanent seems to go against Robert Pirsig's notion that it is >>>>>>> best to find a balance between Dynamic Quality and static quality. >>> >>> Marsha: >>> Dan, maybe this is RMP's notion of balance; to know sq/DQ as the same. >> >> Dan: >> "But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no >> longer apply to Dynamic Quality." [RMP] >> >> So if static quality and Dynamic Quality are known as the same, why >> does Robert Pirsig say once definitions emerge they do not apply to >> Dynamic Quality? If they were known as the same, wouldn't the opposite >> be said to be true? >> > > Marsha: > I suppose humans have evolved to rely on static patterns for their survival. > > Why does Orion predominate the starry night sky? Those few stars are no > longer starry night sky; they are Orion. That pattern know as Orion doesn't > really exist; it's just starry night sky up there, but yet the pattern of > stars known as Orion has taken on an independent existence. So what is it? > Is it starry night sky, or is it Orion? Or is it both? To me it is the > pattern of Orion overlaid upon the starry night sky; like it is static > pattern overlaid upon Dynamic Quality. But that's why I said it is so > difficult to talk about both sq and DQ together. Somewhere else RMP says > static quality is subordinate to DQ; that DQ is not subordinate to anything. > > Only RMP can explain with certainty what he meant. But I agree with him that > the definition no longer applies to DQ. > > > Marsha > > > >> Thank you, >> >> Dan >> >> "You wanna change the way I make love... I wanna leave it alone..." >> Leonard Cohen >> >> 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
