Ant,
Thanks for your opinion. Also, I read somewhere that Buddha not only was a symbol for a man, but also a symbol for the teaching. And the references to Buddhism are also included in the MoQ textbook. Marsha On Mar 2, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Ant McWatt wrote: > > Marsah V wrote to Dave Buchanan February 20th 2013: > > > Along with some similarities between the MoQ and W. James' Pragmatism, RMP > has pointed to similarities between the MoQ and Buddhism, and RMP is > considered a Process philosopher, along with Charles Peirce and Alfred North > Whitehead. Look up the word 'process'. > > Ant McWatt comments: > > Well, these kind of comparisons of the MOQ with process philosophy, Buddhism, > pragmatism etc is all very useful for talking to academic philosophologists > but, on reflection, I wouldn't push these comparisons too far. The MOQ is > it's own thing. These type of comparisons put limits to it which, to borrow > a phrase of Wittgenstein's, are ladders that should be thrown away once the > MOQ is understood (or at least just used/perceived as the "rough" > maps/pointers that they are). I'm quite aware of what Pirsig wrote in LILA > about the MOQ and pragmatism and the statement near the beginning of my PhD > of the MOQ being some sort of Western form of Buddhism. > > This is coming back to a recent Discuss post where Ham Priday complains that > Dynamic Quality is left undefined. Now, one of the reasons that it's > important to do this is so DQ/the "indeterminate aesthetic > continuum"/God?/the "Tao" is kept out of the cultural context of any given > era. People always want to label things, put a handle them, understand them > in terms of their own everyday life. Firstly, such definitions - by their > own nature - warp and leave out certain aspects of DQ. Secondly, as Pirsig > notes in LILA, the reason that traditional religion has become less relevant > and useful, is that its relatively static social traditions and institutions > are strangling the Dynamic Quality which initially guided and established > them. The dogma and ceremonies are analogous to the dirt and pollution which > hide and slowly destroy statues on the outside of a cathedral. > > > On February 20th 2013, David Buchanan wrote: > >> Here is Marsha's (incorrect and incoherent) definition/explanation of static >> patterns of value: >> >> >> Static patterns of value are repetitive processes, conditionally >> co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing... > > Ant McWatt comments: > > No, not in LILA they're don't. In the MOQ of LILA, static patterns don't > change. > > This "world of Buddhas" (AND THE PHRASE ENDS with an "s" Marsha and Dan!!!) > viewpoint was largely introduced in the PhD largely for the benefit of the > philosophologists. For practical purposes, for maintaining your motorcycle, > for improving your writing or whatever, I don't think it's of much use. It > certainly has confused things round here. This is why I said at the beginning > of the thread, that its use should be qualified. If you look at how Pirsig's > uses this viewpoint (certainly with my correspondence) it's relatively rare > use is always qualified. Things are kept clear by Pirsig (which, is so > important with understanding a whole new metaphysics). > > Getting back to the correspondence, Pirsig suggested (I think it was in May > 1997 - either way, this is in the Letters PDF) that the term "patterned" and > "unpatterned" would work nearly just as well as the "static-Dynamic" split of > the MOQ that Pirsig finally decided to use. As we can see by reading > Pirsig's original letter he makes reference to Dainin Kategiri Roshi (the Zen > master at Minneapolis Zen Center during the 1970s) and the latter's saying > that "in nothingness [i.e. DQ], there is a great working". In other words, > "Unpatterned" implies nothing is going on while, in fact, the whole universe > is being generated and regenerated every moment! > > To be put it in other words, no term is going to be perfect. The word > "static" has these Newtonian connotations; the word "unpatterned" implies > nothing is going on. (It's analogous to the labelling of light as > wave-particles; it's not a perfect description but it such a description > lends a clue to the dual nature of light's behaviour). > > 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 ___ 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
