>> [djh] >> It is amazing to me that we cannot talk about a 'perspective' which is >> fundamental to the MOQ. Khoo is totally right that "From the point of view >> of Eastern Philosophy, there is no denial of intellect, but merely placing >> it in its proper place." This too is what the MOQ does and so can we >> not*intellectually* talk about the alternative perspective or the >> experience of Dynamic Quality? > [Horse] > You can talk about it all you want! I have never stopped anyone talking about > what is an integral part of Quality. My objection is that it is lazy and > dishonest to use DQ/Mystic status as an excuse for sloppy thinking and poor > reasoning. > If you want to talk intellectually about DQ then go ahead. You won't get very > far because DQ cannot be captured by the intellect. If you want to do the > textual equivalent of waving your hands about that's up to you but stop > trying to use this as some form of excuse for poor reasoning and sloppy > thinking. That is the point I have been making but which some on MD refuse to > see! >> [djh] >> Along these lines I was about to post this riddled with the term >> 'perspective' and then noticed your lack of value for the term >> 'perspective'. In line with RMP I will start to use the terms 'static point >> of view' and 'Dynamic understanding' instead as per the following two >> quality Lila's Child Quotes.. >> "From an intellectual point of view, Dynamic understanding is a logical >> contradiction. Logic does not control Dynamic understanding however and >> within it there is no contradiction." > [Horse] > Where does this relate to poor reasoning and sloppy thinking? However it > relates there is still no excuse to be had. As I've stated a number of times > this is a forum for philosophy not 'Mystic Malcolm's quotes and musings'. > Discuss DQ all you want in threads labelled as such that relate to Robert > Pirsig's MoQ! Why is that such a hard concept for some members of this list? > What I'd really like to see is for certain folks to stop fucking about and > playing asshole games and get stuck into the business of this forum - > discussing ROBERT PIRSIG'S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY!!! >> [djh] >> Before I paste the other quote - see how a Dynamic understanding >> is*opposed* to intellect? It is a logical*contradiction*. These are not >> my words Horse. They are RMP's. Anyway here's the other quote in which RMP >> again uses the terms 'static point of view' and 'Dynamic understanding'.. >> "Good question. The “Gateless Gate” analogy of the Buddhists may be the >> answer. In this analogy, as one approaches the gate, it seems to be a goal, >> but after one has passed through and looks back he sees there never was any >> gate Translating back into the MOQ, one can say that Dynamic Quality is a >> goal from a static point of view, but is the origin of all things from a >> Dynamic understanding." > [Horse] > Wonderful! Now that you've got that off your chest can I presume that you'll > get back to the business of moq_discus (see above). >> [djh] >> Anyway, feel free to pull me up if I say anything below which you are >> unhappy with and I will try and adjust accordingly. I would like to >> re-iterate that I do very much value this forum for its intellectual value >> and I think it has a great culture because of it's support of this. > [Horse] > Thank you David, I'm glad to see that you support the aims of the MD forum - > that of intellectual quality as opposed to musings about the indefinable. > There is a time and a place for discussion of DQ, if members so choose, and I > will support it's inclusion on this list with the proviso that it is not used > inappropriately with the intention of either attempting to trash Intellect or > falsely claiming that 'DQ/Mystic' thinking or perspective or whatever trumps > intellect. This is pure bullshit and will be treated as such.
[djh] I should start off by saying that I sent off my original post late at night here and it wasn't until morning that I realised that you weren't criticising the use of the term 'perspective' but of folks, such as Marsha, who only wants to talk from the one 'mystic' perspective, or Dan who only wants to point to DQ. On this point I couldn't agree more! If someone comes onto this forum and values Dynamic Quality to the extent whereby when one begins to talk intellectual static quality(context 2) with them and they continually point to Dynamic Quality(context 1) - then this is indeed a problem! The MOQ is static quality. When can you talk about the MOQ or its levels if all you're interested in is Dynamic Quality? Where I have a slight disagreement with you is that the DQ/Mystic thinking *doesn't* trump intellect. According to the Code of Art - DQ *trumps* intellect. The problems arise in this discussion though - when folks value *exclusively* DQ to the point where when you want to talk intellectual values they'll *continually* point to Dynamic Quality or how this perspective trumps everything. There is a problem though, with exclusively valuing DQ as they do which RMP points at: "To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos." And so by valuing it so much they end up destroying it.. Dynamic Quality alone - isn't Dynamic Quality - it's chaos. This is degeneracy no matter which way you shape it. 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
