Hello everyone On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 7:35 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ant, > > Ones experience of the sun is one that is ever-changing as the sun moves > position through the sky and as ones visual perspective and context changes. > Even moving ones head changes the experience. And I thought the MoQ was to > change the everyday understanding from one of self and objects to one where > the world is nothing but value. I didn't think it was to keep the everyday > mundane understanding in a static state of ignorance. - I would certainly > recommend your PhD thesis and Textbook as a valuable resource.
Dan: I would agree, Marsha. I nearly choked on my chips when I read Anthony's reply. Aren't we here to talk about the MOQ? We're all familiar with static perspectives of the everyday world, or so I assume. This is the world of subjects observing objects that are apart and quite independent of us. Sure, our language is built around that foundation. And if we are all content to speak from that perspective, then what are we doing here? I've been butting my head against this keyboard in my efforts to explain this to David Harding. I've offered quotes backing up my assertions. And now Anthony is basically saying the same thing as David! Oh my! The MOQ can be applied to everyday life. I do it all the time. I use it in relationship building. I use it in my work. It enters my writings. It has opened up whole new vistas that I had never before considered. And believe me, I am no academic. So to say the MOQ is just an academic exercise with no value in the real world seems, well, dismissive at best. Anyway, I cannot say I agree with Marsha's definition of self as it does seem a bit confusing and contradictory. But I cannot agree with Anthony in his summation either. Is this what you're teaching your students? And if so, are you sure you're teaching Quality? Perhaps I have misread these words. Please correct any misinterpretations I have made. Thank you, Dan http://www.danglover.com > > > Marsha > > On Feb 4, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Ant McWatt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Marsha wrote to X-man (Ron) and Dave Buchanan, Feb 5th 2013: >> >> Here's my definition of the self: the “self” is a flow of >> ever-changing, conditionally co-dependent and impermanent static >> patterns value in the infinite field of Dynamic Quality. >> >> >> Dave Buchanan responded: >> >> As I've pointed out many times, your definition of the self is >> contradictory. Obviously, if the self "flows" and is "ever-changing" >> then it can not also be a "static" pattern. Those are contradictory >> terms and so your definition is nonsense. Can't you think of a way to >> say it that doesn't contradict standard definitions or violate basic >> logic >> >> Words like "flowing" and "ever-changing" can rightly >> be used to describe the "Dynamic", but not the "static" or the >> "patterned". Since "static" and "Dynamic" are such central terms in the >> MOQ, your contradictory definition is especially egregious. >> >> egregious |iˈgrējəs|adjective outstandingly bad; shocking >> >> >> Ant McWatt comments: >> >> This reminds of the more esoteric material (Joseph Margolis? - I can't >> remember off the top of my head) that Scott Roberts introduced seven-eight >> years ago. You can just go on and on in these logical circles; spinning >> words like a logical positivist on speed... Anyway, as Dave is saying, LILA >> is basically written from the static perspective of the "everyday, mundane >> world" where, for pragmatic reasons, it's just easier to presume the >> components of the self are static, or better still (as Marsha implied), so >> we don't confuse Pirsig's static-Dynamic terminology with the concepts of >> Newtonian physics, "stable". (The latter modification is noted by Pirsig as >> an improvement somewhere in the correspondence). >> >> Of course, in my academic correspondence with Pirsig which Marsha enjoys >> quoting extensively from the MOQ Textbook and PhD (btw, still both available >> as PDF files from the groovy looking shop at robertpirsig.org!!!), the >> Dynamic perspective of the "Buddha's World" was introduced, and, of course, >> the essential nature of the (dependent) static patterns are seen as >> ever-changing and impermanent from that perspective. But some of these >> changes - such as our sun slowly burning itself out - are outside many human >> lifetimes. Though I think it's important to realise that perspective is >> there (especially in regards to avoiding dukkha/personal imbalance), it can >> confuse things (certainly when discussing the MOQ) if you're not making it >> clear that it is this perspective you're taking. >> >> And, then, you can apply the logic of the Tetralemma and be really strict >> about what you can and can not assert about reality (and its various >> components) but how useful is that type of academic exercise for maintaining >> your bike or getting on with your wife or encouraging world peace, love and >> understanding? Not much really. It's academic, fat man in the refrigator >> time. A little bit degenerate and essentially self-serving. >> (Though having said that, I'm still looking forward to receiving Paul >> Turner's new, updated thoughts about the Tetralemma - for publication at >> robertpirsig.org - in the next couple of weeks or so. Who's for MOQ >> cheeseburger and freedom fries?!) >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Ant >> 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
