Hello All Anyone who reads Lila carefully will notice that all through the story it is very much about how things are related to how water is moving, but I don't think RMP used water as an analogy for DQ.
J A 30 mar 2013 kl. 22:30 skrev david buchanan <[email protected]>: > > Dan said to Marsha: > > I guess I don't see where you're going with this. Water isn't distinct from > ice. Water IS ice. It is simply in a solid state rather than a liquid. > Inorganic patterns like water change structure according to the ambient > surroundings. Think iron: its melting point is much higher than water. But it > is still iron in either state. > On the other hand, static quality is distinct from Dynamic Quality by > definition. Static quality emerges from Dynamic Quality. To say 'the > fundamental nature of static quality is Dynamic Quality' seems confusing > rather than enlightening, in my opinion. Isn't the fundamental nature of > static quality its definition? > > > dmb says: > That's right. I think Lucy is use of the McGilchrist quote only undermines > the MOQ's central distinction. "Crazy" is such a strong word. Let's just say > she's conceptually promiscuous. It's so fuzzy you can't really make anything > out AND it invites an all-too-easy materialistic misinterpretation of the > static/Dynamic split, wherein metaphysical terms are inappropriately used to > describe physical states. You can see very common error in David Morey's > response to that quote... > > > David Morey said: > I love this quote. And it is when we experience changes like ice changing to > water then it becomes pretty clear what DQ is all about, and that water is > more dynamic than ice, and that is more static than water. ... > > > dmb says: > Water and ice are okay as analogies, maybe. But if static quality is > everything in the encyclopedia and both of them (water and ice) are definable > and both of them are included in the encyclopedia, then they're both static > in the MOQ's sense of the word. Pirsig says that Dynamic Quality is the > cutting of experience and static quality is conceptual, ideas, abstractions, > thoughts, the products of reflection, etc.. I don't see how it could make any > sense to say that water is the cutting edge of experience or how it could > make any sense to say that ice is a product of reflection. I mean, this is a > matter of confusing the metaphysics of substance with the metaphysics of > Quality. > > > > > > > "Water is distinct from ice, but in the ice cube it is present: not as a fly > might be trapped there, but _in the very ice_. And yet when the ice cube is > gone, the water remains. Although we see water as ice, we do so not because > it is there separately, to be seen from behind or apart from the cube." (Iain > McGilchrist, 'The MASTER and his EMISSARY: The Divided Brain and the Making > of the Western World', p. 452). > > 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
