Hi Andre, > David: > All things, including the term Quality, are a demarcation of outlines or > limits. In fact, every thing is. > > Andre: > Quality, the Tao, the Buddhist " Nothingness" has 'limits? Is some sort of > 'demarcation'? What , then lies outside of it? (which, by definition (!) it > must). If we are talking 'from the world of the Buddha' nothing lies outside > of Quality. It is limitless, is outside (prior to) time, outside (prior to) > space. > > Pirsig seeks to preserve this and that's why, from a static point of view DQ > is a referring term.
Yes.. There are two perspectives of the MOQ. You're right that from a Dynamic understanding there are no limits. But we are on a philosophical discussion board now and we are talking about ideas and concepts and words and all these are static things with limits. From a static point of view, while the term DQ is referring, it is still a static quality reference and thus not Dynamic Quality. > > David: > Any word that you use, any demarcation of outline or limit is a restriction > of the ultimate Dynamic Quality. > > He doesn't say he is 'partially' defining it by outlining a Metaphysics. > > Andre: > No, I say that any definition is partial, an approximation, a finger pointing > to. You can never 'get' it. Any definition of DQ is not DQ. It is sq. You can > indefinitely define DQ and never 'get' it. That is why DQ is not 'part' of > the MOQ. It is a referring term.' Right I agree with this. However as I say above the referring term is yet more static quality. This is my point. -David. 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
