> dmb says: > The contradiction is both clear and epic. > Where Pirsig says, "the world is primarily a moral order" and "value is the > fundamental ground-stuff of the world," DJH says, "All things are mystically > degenerate".
Marsha: This is much like the contradiction where RMP says "Change is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience...", dmb says "DQ, or reality itself is ever-changing. That's what "dynamic" means". [Ron sez] The problem is applying this concept cross-contextualy. Dave is correct when he states that when we are dealing with meaning we are dealing with static concepts, the concept of "change" is descriptive of Dynamic experience, if we are trying to define DQ in any general way it is probably in this concept of "change" or "flux" because quite simply a metaphysics needs a pointer a place holder for the real DQ of the experiential "now". It is a frame of reference in which his entire explanation is centered around. Therefore Dynamic means "change" it's how we understand the "now" portion of experience in broad generalization. The explanation of "change" or the "why" or "what for" is the undefined "good" or "Quality". Remember, first there is Quality, then the division, Dynamic (a common word meaning "power" or "force") therefore once one makes a divison, a distinction in experience one is now entering into static conceptions. The dynamic quality talked about and discussed and reffered to by RMP ........the one that is ever-changing in flux and perceptual IS NOT the indefineable "now" of experience it reffers to. It is a concept that is descriptive even though it describes the "now" as undefinable. There is the indefineable "now" and then there are the words that state the now is indefineable. There is DQ and then there is the word "DQ" what ties them together is meaning, intellectual meaning. DQ is an intellectual pattern pointing to the "now". Since it is an intellectual pattern pointing to the now it does not conflict nor contradict in meaning to also say (intellectually) that it is ever-changing because it is descriptive and agrees with the now of our experience (tie to pragmatism) Therefore dynamic quality is a primary static Pragmatic "truth" the now changes and experience confirms this. Remember DQ/SQ is an intellectual distinction made FROM experience, therefor it is a thought about experience and should not be mistaken or confused with the indefineable preintellctual "now" it refers to. IF you DO...then ....you percieve a contradiction in meaning...OFTEN CONTRADICTION means that there is a misunderstanding ..It is an important tool in critical thinking. Contradiction is a virtue only as a warning sign of misunderstanding of meaning. ... AGAIN then,....to describe static patterns as everchanging is to create a conflict in static meaning and blur the first division in the explanation of MoQ and create an immediate contradiction in what the terms "static" and "dynamic" mean within the context of Pirsigs explanation. HAVING SAID THAT Making the assertion that all experience (both static and dynamic refferences) is everchanging simply confirms the initial assertion of the meaning the static term dynamic quality and to re assert it AFTER this conceptual split is to invite contradiction misunderstanding and confusion in meaning. THIS is the criticism of your "Mission statement" or "mantra" you continually re-post... One can only guess WHY since you do not seem to want any feedback concerning it. If you could give a fuck what anyone here thinks, WHY WHY would you continually re-post it? WHAT are you seeking? ... ... 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
