On Jun 1, 2013, at 11:27 AM, david buchanan wrote:
>
>
> 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
___
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
