> [djh] > The Dynamic/East context is the same as context 1. The static/West > context is the same as context 2. > > [Arlo] > I suggest you take some time and read Northrop's Meeting of East and West. > There is really nothing more I can say to this, David. This "context" > dichotomy has no value to me, and as a tool for you to > compartmentalize/classify/stratify people I'd say it has a negative value > overall.
[djh] I don't see it as a tool to 'compartmentalize/classify/stratify' people - what it can do however is help us to understand what someone is saying. At the most fundamental level there is an apparent contradiction within the MOQ and unless you understand the assumptions with which things are said from either context then this apparent contradiction can lead to misunderstandings and conflict. Much like many of the conflicts were seeing on this discussion board. I'm sure we both agree that Paul highlighting the two contexts is a great help. In fact your latest comment to Ian is a fine example of this as well. > I'll leave it up to Paul to argue if you've misconstrued both his ideas > and his point, but as far as I understand him, using "Dynamic/static, > East/West" to label these 'contexts' is wrong, shortsighted and evidences > serious misunderstanding. "Context 1" is simply Quality precedes subjects > and objects. It is not "East" and it is not "Dynamic" Except as RMP has said the Quality of ZMM is the Dynamic Quality of Lila. Dynamic Quality precedes subjects and objects. Dynamic Quality is traditionally the quality of the East because it's culture recognises and has many part of its culture which acknowledge its existence. Look a the Tao Te Ching. See anything as prominent like that in the West? Having read the meeting of east and west you'll know that the undifferentiated aesthetic continuum is what the East is all about and that is another name for Dynamic Quality.. > Context 2" is simply the evolutionary hierarchy that emerges in the wake > of Quality, and it is neither "West" nor "static". Again the evolutionary hierarchy emerges in the wake of Dynamic Quality. What we call 'Evolution' is the static quality which emerges in response to Dynamic Quality. Because the West has traditionally downplayed the existence of Dynamic Quality ( this is all spoken about in Lila ) it is traditionally primarily interested in static quality - the things which are created after they have already been created. The role of DQ is not really recognised. The MOQ changes that and combines these previously two disparate world outlooks into a beautiful coherent whole centred around Quality and points out that we start with dynamic quality (context 1) then we go on to context 2 - static quality. Dynamic and static quality are present in both views, and traditionally > eastern and western views are present in both views. I've already given one > example to Dan about how a "context" should/could be illuminated by both of > these light. I read a similar comment of yours to DMB and I praised it. Not all things are both things however. In this instance though of course static quality and Dynamic Quality exist in both cultures but I'm talking about the difference between the cultures and it seems that (as mentioned in Lila and MOEAW) tradtionally Eastern culture has valued and acknowledged the existence of DQ and the West has downplayed the importance of DQ and has been more interested in the patterns themselves. 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
