On 9/21/13 2:25 PM, "David Buchanan" <[email protected]> wrote: >DMB > Why wouldn't we want to be accurate about Pirsig's meaning on this point or > any other aspect of the MOQ? Why is it a problem to think that static patterns > can provide order and stability without being eternally fixed and forever > frozen? [Dave] No the real problem is, Why would Pirsig pick the word "static" for patterns of human knowledge that obviously change at rates from almost never to nearly continuous? Our experience of reality is dynamic. From those experiences we infer pragmatically that reality is also dynamic. Under the MoQ this dynamic reality is a monism consisting solely of various manifestations of Quality. What good is it to portray that the tiny subset of dynamic reality that we call "human knowledge" with word "static"? It's not. Pirsig was so locked into the idea that first split in quality was so, so crucial yet when he did use his "knife" he fell into the very trap he rails against. Subject/Object, Mind/Body, Black/White, Static/Dynamic. The "best" splits are all opposites? He didn't need the split. The split is built right in, Dynamic Reality/Our Experience of, and subsequent knowledge of it. Dictionaries are chocked full of words to corral the idea that our knowledge of reality is limited, partial, incomplete, often wrong, etcetera , etcetera....... unfortunately "static" is one that is so far down the quality list that it makes the Dynamic/Static pairing just another bad opening. It confuses more than it clarifies. Not good.
>DMB >Why is it a problem to admit that words, ideas, the MOQ or any other > written text can last long enough to discuss or study it? [Dave] No one I know of claims this is a problem. But as Patrick Doorly's "The Truth about Art" clearly illustrates the word, the meaning, and the practices meriting the name "art" have dynamically evolved, changed, sometimes radically over the last 3000 years of Western culture alone. To characterize this word, it ideas, written texts and artifacts as "static, making little or no change, having no motion; being at rest; quiescent, fixed; stationary" is just not a "species of GOOD" for me. It does not agree with my experience. But I do thank you. Without your help I would not have become a MoQ apostate. If your words here accurately depict the morality of this system and the real world actions they inspire, and I think they do, it's not something I wish to apply to my life or recommend to a friend. Dave 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
