Marsha: Agree with me or don't. I am neither cowed or wowed by your posts. You're not my moral or intellectual compass, and you have not demonstrated, to me, that you are a model of coherence or of intellectual competency. If you impress others, good for you and good for them. You do not impress me. And I have no desire to argue against "whatever you think." Even with David Harding, in your responses you have jumped from degeneracy to moral to gumption, while doing little more than copy and pasting loads of quoted material. Boring...
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
