Hi, Arlo. breathtaking to read in your last two postings,that you understood the Turhererpaper completely,just as you understood Pirsigs, works completely.Furthermore you seem to handle all possible implications flawlessly with a 'natural' as if the rest is unimportant.
what you are presenting here,Arlo, is the same quality DMB, Turner,Pirsig,and Mc Watt are capable off. However i have to agree,that there is no point in pedalling back to bo's crap,not even if advocated by Ian or Marha. Thanks anyway for the conversation whan you talked about Sinnamahoning,i liked it so well that i did a virtual tour on google maps to visualise it a bit for myself, nice environment! greetzz. 2013/8/5 ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <[email protected]> > [DJH] > At the most fundamental level there is an apparent contradiction within > the MOQ... > > [Arlo] > I do not see this a 'contradiction' (apparent or otherwise) within the > MOQ. How I read Paul's ideas, is that Pirsig uses two voices over two > books, one epistemological and one ontological. I've never had a problem > understanding this, but if this helps people who are struggling, I guess > that's fine. By the way, most philosophers move through 'periods' in their > writing, this is normal. > > [Arlo previously] > "Context 1" is simply Quality precedes subjects and objects. It is not > "East" and it is not "Dynamic" > > [DJH] > Except as RMP has said the Quality of ZMM is the Dynamic Quality of Lila. > Dynamic Quality precedes subjects and objects. > > [Arlo] > By calling context one "Dynamic" and context two "static", your confusing > the terms and drawing a distinction that does not exist. Both context one > and context two involve Dynamic and static quality, and their relation to > each other. They differ, as Paul suggests, not in one being Dynamic and one > being static, but in one being epistemological and one being ontological. > > [DJH] > Dynamic Quality is traditionally the quality of the East... > > [Arlo] > Sigh. No, David, Dynamic Quality is not the quality of the East. Pirsig > recognizes that many Eastern cultures, and much Native American culture, > are not strongly rooted in a subject-object orientation, and many are more > informed by 'religious mysticism' than 'scientific positivism'. But > non-SOM/SOM does not translate to Dynamic/static. To make this leap is to > misunderstand BOTH binaries. > > Dynamic Quality and static quality describes the evolutionary force that > drives both (ALL!) cultures. SOM and non-SOM is used to describe the > effects on that evolution when 'objects' or 'subjects' are considered to be > primary to experience. > > [DJH] > we start with dynamic quality (context 1) then we go on to context 2 - > static quality > > [Arlo] > No. No. No. > > We start with an epistemological position, that Dynamic Quality precedes > static quality, and then we move into an ontological position where- > keeping our epistemological position salient- Dynamic Quality generates an > evolutionary wake of static quality, we thus we are able to generate > "pragmatic high quality explanations of how the world operates in > accordance with the assumption that values are the ubiquitous, empirical > element of an evolving universe". > > In both 'contexts', Dynamic and static quality are present, and in both a > statement of relation is made. Not a relation of primacy. Not a relation of > prevalence. Not a relation of 'culture'. A relation of VALUE. > > I understand that in his paper Paul refers to context 2 as the 'static > mythos', but I'd disagree here. Context two is not the static mythos. It is > the value-relation between the 'static mythos' and the that which 'causes > us to create the world in which we live' (to follow his use of ZMM lingo). > Both 'contexts' are intellectual patterns expressing a relationship between > the two aspects of Pirsig's primary metaphysical division. > > Now, really, I am done with this. I don't know whether or not I'm doing > Paul's intention any justice, but I have no interest in having a > third-party argument. As I said, I think reducing Paul's contexts to > "Dynamic/East" and "static/West" is a very incorrect move. But you are > clinging to this no matter what I say, so its obvious I can't convince you > of this. So, let's bring this to an end. > > 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 > -- parser 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
