Marsha: My static term for 'Dynamic Quality' is unpatterned. Unpatterned, as in not divisible, not definable, not knowable, without boundaries, 'not this, not that'. Unpatterned, as in no-thing, or pattern, to change. Dmb's statement "DQ, or reality itself is ever-changing. That's what 'dynamic' means" is contrary to RMP saying that 'change' "is probably the first concept emerging from this Dynamic experience..." Your feedback doesn't match my experience. It is not a workable explanation.
Marsha On May 31, 2013, at 10:34 AM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> 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 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
