dmb said to Arlo and all:
The contradiction [DJH's] 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 said:
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 said to Marsha:
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
which his entire explanation is centered around. Therefore Dynamic means
"change" it's how we understand the "now" portion of experience in broad
generalization. ...
dmb says:
Right. Marsha's complaint is a cheap stunt, the purpose of which is not to seek
truth but just to get attention. It's dishonest, petty and stupid. She not only
confuses several different contexts, she's also changed the subject.
You can see what she's trying to do. Instead of dealing with her own
contradictions (ever-changing static patterns) or addressing the contradiction
in DJH's formulation (degenerate static quality), she is desperately trying to
fabricate a contradiction to use against me. It's just another dishonest
evasion. And it's not even a contradiction, of course. The statements made by
Pirsig and myself are concerned with two different topics, they are speaking to
different issues.
If the warrior woman was being honest, she wouldn't take things out of context.
If that were the case, then should would compare statements by Pirsig and
myself that ARE on the same topic. If she wanted to be honest and fair, it
would be very easy to find lots quotes from both of Pirsig's books to support
my claim. AND even if that weren't true, there is still no contradiction. To
say (speculate) that "change" is one of the first concepts to emerge from DQ is
perfectly compatible with the claim that DQ is ever-changing and in fact Pirsig
makes both of those claims. Maybe there would be a contradiction if I had said
that "change" is not a concept or if I had said "change is one of the last
concepts to emerge," but I didn't. Nobody did.
Here's how Ant explained it about 15 years ago; please notice how DQ is
described with phrases like, "continually changing flux," "indeterminate
aesthetic continuum," and "an ever-changing flow of perceptions".
7. So how is Dynamic Quality differentiated from static quality?
Dynamic Quality is the term given by Pirsig to the continually changing flux of
immediate reality while static quality refers to any concept abstracted from
this flux. Pirsig equates Dynamic Quality with F.S.C. Northrop's "indeterminate
aesthetic continuum" which refers to the divine in experience and can only be
understood properly through direct apprehension. Hence the use of the term
"dynamic" which indicates something not fixed or determinate. Ultimately, it is
apparent that Dynamic Quality can't be defined as such and that true
understanding of it can only be given through a mystic experience such as
enlightenment.
Guenther adds:
"The Ultimate, in Buddhism, is something knowable, though not known by theory
or discursive method, but by direct experience"
(Herbert Guenther, "Philosophy and Psychology in the Abidharma", Random House,
1957, p.235)
In other words, the Buddha can't tell you what Dynamic Quality is, but he can
point a way so you can experience it for yourself and then you'll understand.
Moreover, Pirsig states that...
"It's important to keep all 'concepts' out of Dynamic Quality. Concepts are
always static. Once they get into Dynamic Quality they'll overrun it and try to
present it as some kind of a concept itself. (For instance) I think it's better
to say that time is a static intellectual concept that is one of the very first
to emerge from Dynamic Quality. That keeps Dynamic Quality concept-free."
"Time is only a problem for the SOM people because if time has none of the
properties of an object then it must be subjective. And if time is subjective
that means Newton's laws of acceleration and many other laws of physics are
subjective. Nobody in the scientific world wants to allow that."
"All this points to a huge fundamental metaphysical difference between the MOQ
and classical science: The MOQ is truly empirical. Science is not. Classical
science starts with a concept of the objective world - atoms and molecules - as
the ultimate reality. This concept is certainly supported by empirical
observation but it is not the empirical observation itself."
(letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, October 6th 1997)
Paul Williams mentions in his book "Mahayana Buddhism" the "Three Aspects"
which are the central teachings of the Cittamatra (pron. Chitta-martra)(or Mind
Only) school of Buddhism. In the First Aspect it is the falsifying activity of
language which attributes independent and permanent existence to things. In the
second aspect of the Cittamatra teachings it is emphasised that objects are
only conceptualised (or constructed) aspects of experience. This is basically
what the MOQ says from its Dynamic (or mystic viewpoint).
There are no objects or subjects as traditionally thought within the MOQ.
However, for pragmatic reasons (i.e. it makes life a lot easier) it
conceptualises reality into four patterns of static quality (intellectual,
social, biological and inorganic). Pirsig uses these quality patterns in the
MOQ rather than subjects and objects because he thinks they work better in
describing reality.
However, both metaphysical systems are just ways of conceptualising (or
dividing) our experience and neither are necessarily more truthful than the
other. From a mystic point of view, to say quality patterns are more truthful
or false than subjects and objects is meaningless.
Williams confirms the relativity in metaphysical systems:
"In order to understand what is being said here, one should try and imagine all
things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is experiencing, as just
a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is something "out there". We
have only experiences of colours, shapes, tactile data, and so on. We also
don't know that we ourselves are anything than a further series of experiences.
Taken together, there is only an ever-changing flow of perceptions
(vijnaptimatra)... Due to our beginningless ignorance we construct these
perceptions into enduring subjects and objects confronting each other. This is
irrational, things are not really like that, and it leads to suffering and
frustration. The constructed objects are the conceptualised aspect. The flow of
perceptions which forms the basis for our mistaken constructions is the
dependent aspect."
(Paul Williams, "Mahayana Buddhism", Routledge, 1989, p.83/84).
You see? Even though anyone can see how DQ is described with phrases like,
"continually changing flux," "indeterminate aesthetic continuum," and "an
ever-changing flow of perceptions," Marsha has foolishly and unsuccessfully
tried to claim that it's contradictory to say "DQ, or reality itself is
ever-changing". I think it's obvious that my claim is exactly right and there
is a ton of evidence to support it. All of this also supports my long-standing
contention that Marsha's description of static patterns as ever-changing is
contradictory nonsense and it is very much at odds with the textual evidence.
Marsha's complaint is incoherent drivel. It has no intellectual merit
whatsoever. It's stupid.
I appreciate your efforts, Ron, but you really ought not waste any of your time
on her cheap little stunts. She just wants attention - until she doesn't
anymore. Old Lucy is quite dishonest and incoherent on that score too.
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
