On May 30, 2013, at 6:25 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Arlo said to DJH:
>
> Two questions to this point. (1) do you think there is/is not a
> contradiction/problem with static patterns of value being both "degenerate"
> and "moral" (according to Pirsig)? (2) If all static quality is, by
> definition, mystically degenerate, then what would be the point of embracing
> ANY static pattern, from food to poetry to painting to language to baseball?
> How is this not an argument for something along the lines of asceticism?
Marsha:
Which way does that "embracing" go? Isn't it mostly the static patterns doing
the embracing?
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality
it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which
is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
(LILA, Chapter 12)
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
