> dmb said: > Are we having a conversation or are you just going to repeat the same > nonsense over and over again? Address the damn argument or shut up.. the > definition of a philosophical concept or term is not degenerate because > philosophical concepts and terms are not the mystic reality. The concepts, > the terms and the definition are all static intellectual pattens. In fact, > this whole forum can only ever be static and intellectual. Anyone who thinks > we are dealing here with the mystic reality itself is deeply, deeply > confused.. Deal with it or leave me alone. Your parrot-like incorrigibility > is boring me to death. Yawn. Snore. Snooze.
djh responds: I'm trying to answer this as directly as possible dmb but you seem to keep missing my point. Anyway I'll try another way - as Marsha quotes: "Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get." In the above quote Pirsig clearly explains that a metaphysics - which is nothing but a bunch of definitions of philosophical concepts - is immoral and degenerate *because* it is an attempt of intellect trying to devour a higher mystic form of evolution (DQ). This is in line with the following Pirsig quote from LC where he explicitly explains that everyone *constantly* defines DQ.. "Dynamic Quality is defined constantly by everyone. Consciousness can be described is a process of defining Dynamic Quality. But once the definitions emerge, they are static patterns and no longer apply to Dynamic Quality. So one can say correctly that Dynamic Quality is both infinitely definable and undefinable because definition never exhausts it." DQ isn't some mystical thing far away - it's right here and we're both defining it and destroying it right now with our intellectual discussion.. Does that mean we should stop our intellectual discussion? Or pretend - like Marsha - that static patterns are 'ever-changing'? Of course not. We cannot help but destroy the ultimately undefined nature of reality but because Good is a noun it's best if we be as good as we can. Don't you agree with that? 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
