Hi, I am really not sure what dmb means by the distinction between concepts and reality. Concepts are a part of my reality.
The presentation of DQ and SQ by Pirsig was never intended to suggest that reality exists separately from our thinking, for such a thing would be rediculous. It would make it seem that we are living in an unreal world and give a whole new meaning to the term reality. Reality is our interaction with existence, it is not something hidden behind a curtain. The suggestion that it is, is unreal. We cannot place reality into a static cage, we can never fully describe Quality. The distinction between DQ and sq lies within the social and intellectual levels. As Marsha has suggested, SQ is codified DQ. To put it another way, DQ can be considered as the creativity behind SQ (amongst other things). As an example, a painter working on a work of art is DQ, while the work of art itself is SQ. We come up with all sorts of SQ as the result of our creativity. Much of it is, of course, learned through indoctrination at an early age. Due to our apparent dependence of SQ (as the result of this indoctrination and civilization), this SQ is often elevated at the expense of DQ. When SQ is seen as reality itself rather than an interpretation (or hypothetical as Marsha calls it), our existence become two dimensional, like shadows in a cave. MoQ seeks to rebalance DQ and SQ and once again leave us with the power of creativity. This is the drive towards betterness. A world dominated by SQ tends to suffocate this drive. We can make this world better, but what it takes is to release ourselves from the chains of SQ. This is what is meant by killing all intellectual patterns. Of course in this case this means putting our intellectual patterns within the perspective of DQ. That is, putting Quality above Truth. Reality is what is. Metaphysics seeks to provide some SQ for such reality. This becomes a bit of a paradox since a creating a metaphysics and its end result is also part of reality. The sun cannot shine on itself, and a metaphysics (sunshine) cannot illuminate reality. However, a metaphysics can present a different way to approach things. Once this way is learned, the specifics of such metaphysics can be left behind. A plane can take you up in the air, but when you are ready to parachute, the plane is left behind. Cheers, Mark On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 6:59 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > dmb, > > Yes, I like the two-view perspective of the MoQ. There is the MoQ as the > intellectual/conceptual metaphysical system, with all its examples and > supporting explanation, which was presented by RMP in 'LILA' and with > interviews, text and letters; and there is the MoQ as Reality = Quality > (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: > Value(unpatterned/patterned). > > To your objection to my designating static patterns of value as > ever-changing, there should be no problem, as I have explained many times, > in understanding that patterns may maintain a static identity at the same > time as they and their context are undergoing constant change. > > Oh my, you have called me a bad philosopher and a troll, but really I am > merely a flow of ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and > conceptualized static patterns of inorganic, biological, social and > intellectual value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. > > > Marsha > > > > On Oct 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > > > Marsha stands firmly upon a paradox that she doesn't understand. She's > remains confused as to the meaning of the MOQ's central distinction, i.e. > the distinction between concepts and reality, between static quality and > Dynamic Quality. > > Pirsig and James both say "there must always be a discrepancy between > concepts and reality". Somehow, she takes this to mean that concepts are > unreal or that they are just fleeting illusions. This stance is very > convenient if one is bad at dealing with concepts. I suppose that's the > main motive for her stance. She is trying to make her own confusion into a > virtue. It's not. Being an enlighten mystic simply isn't the same as being > a bad philosopher, much less a confused troll. > > Yep, Marsah stands firmly on a paradox because she thinks this will give > her a license to indulge in a lot of contradictory nonsense. You know, like > saying that "static patterns" are "ever-changing". She thinks that anything > is true so long as the phrase "for me" is included with the claim. She > thinks that nothing is true so long as it involves words and concepts. Even > though the central idea in the MOQ is that "there must always be a > discrepancy between concepts and reality", she insists that every MOQers > problem is that they mistake concepts for reality. > > I could on like this all day long. Her position is one big pile of > confused nonsense. And no matter what anyone says, she insists on repeating > the same contradictory drivel over and over again. > > > > > >> Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 20:59:06 +0100 > >> From: [email protected] > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [MD] belief > >> > >> Marsha to Andre: > >> I take the two-view perspective of the MoQ. There is the MoQ as the > >> intellectual/conceptual metaphysical system, with all its examples and > >> supporting explanation, which was presented by RMP in 'LILA' and with > >> interviews, text and letters; and there is the MoQ as Reality = Quality > >> (Dynamic/static), or as I prefer to think of it: > >> Value(unpatterned/patterned). > >> > >> Andre: > >> Can't weasel your way out of this one Marsha and you know it but keep on > >> confusing the two. As Reality the MoQ does not exist! That is why, in > >> our everyday world, as we are living it moment to moment the MoQ is an > >> intellectual pattern of value. It is absurd and nihilistic to adhere to > >> both views at the same time in the way YOU do. Obviously you are not a > >> mystic, obviously you are not an intellectual. Obviously you do not > >> understand one iota about MoQ. Both would understand not to confuse the > >> two which you constantly do...whenever it suits you...remember?..."DQ is > >> none other than sq...sq is none other than DQ", as you have argued so > >> often. And your response shows this confusion again and again. > >> > >> It is a ploy, a stance, an excuse for getting you out of tight > >> intellectual situations and the way you do it does nothing to bring you > >> any sort of respect, acceptance or compassion. > >> > >> I take the NOT-TWO-VIEW perspective of the MoQ...just to put you in the > >> picture. Hope this may help...but I doubt it very, very much. > >> > >> Go away Lucy.... . > >> 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 > > > > ___ > > > 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
