> [djh] > Trouble is Arlo, I've never said anything otherwise. > > [Arlo] > Yes. You did. You argued that Paul's "context one" was "Dynamic/East" and his > "context 2" was "static/West". This is a much different that saying context > one is epistemological and context two is ontological. > > What I see you now trying to do is, somehow, move to equate epistemology with > "Dynamic/east", and ontology with "static/West", out of misunderstanding of > what these views value. You keep insisting "context one" is "Dynamic" and > "context two" is "static" and as long as you insist this you have both > misinterpreted Paul and misunderstood Pirsig. > > I am really not sure I have anything more to add.
[djh] You're right Arlo. I have misunderstood Paul's paper.. As I wrote in my last post - Paul's paper is specifically about the *intellectual consequences* of understanding that Dynamic Quality is the creator of all things (context 1) and then moving on from that into a focus on the patterns themselves(context 2). I'll repeat - Paul's paper is all about the *intellectual* consequences of valuing DQ and not about the two different values themselves as I had originally said. The following passage of Paul's makes this clear.. "However, despite the close alignment of context (2) and conventional truth, context (1) and the ultimate truth of the “world of the buddhas”(DQ) are not the same, although closely related. Context (1) is more like an exposition of the relationship between the two truths expressed in terms of value. It is the first half of the circle, covered in ZMM, where the perspective is one which sees the everyday world of the static mythos for what it is, and from where it is generated, yet is not outside of it. The perspective of the buddhas, the 180 degree top of the circle, is outside of any mythos and any fixed context." But this isn't to say that these different values don't exist or that the East hasn't traditionally paid more lip service to the existence of DQ than the West which has been traditionally more focused on the patterns themselves. Furthermore it doesn't change the fact that Marsha can see the value of Dynamic Quality but not static quality. I mean - ZMM is a book about what's fundamental. It concludes that undefined quality is fundamental. Marsha would certainly agree with that. She can see the value in this conclusion. But this conclusion on its own doesn't have to be intellectual and this is where wires are getting crossed. Marsha goes from this possibly non-intellectual conclusion to rejecting the intellectual static values such as clarity, precision and the assumption that things exist before we think about them. And dmb's right when he points out that Marsha appears to have misread ZMM and its riling against SOM as riling against intellect and thus cannot distinguish between the cure or the disease.. And so what I think Paul's paper tries to do with the two contexts is point us back to the *intellectual* consequences of ZMM which some folks - such as Marsha - appear to not value all that much.. What do you think? 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
