dmb, And Andre added a special ps: please don't give me quotes. Ohhh, but you and your analogies are so special, so real and true. Zzzzzzzz.
Marsha --- > On Sep 28, 2013, at 3:40 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > "The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the > Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic > tradition it doesn't change from day to day, although the world it talks > about does." > > > > Marsha said: > ...static value is empty of inherent existence and cannot be found. How is > that for a bottom line? > > > > Andre replied: > Mmmm, I really wonder how you figured that out Marsha? And what this means as > far as the MoQ goes. Care to take that one on? Remember, there are two > questions. > > > > > dmb says: > It's never easy to untangle Marsha's messes and this one is especially > confused. Like I said with respect to her line about static patterns being > dependent rather than independent, this line about static patterns being > empty of inherent existence is also a paraphrasing of a perfectly good > Buddhist idea but she misapplies it to concepts rather than realities. > > To claim that something does have its own inherent existence or that it > exists independently is to say that the thing is a primary ontological > reality. To use the most relevant example, this is what SOM claims with > respect to subjects and objects. Subject-Object Metaphysics is so named > because it says subjects and objects are the starting points of reality. SOM > says that objects have their own independent existence, their own inherent > existence. The MOQ rejects that claim, rejects SOM and offers static patterns > instead in order to avoid making that claim. > > This is where it makes sense to apply these Buddhist objections - but Marsha > is using these objections against the MOQ's static patterns. The Buddhist > objections are just fine and very much in line with the MOQ's objections to > SOM but Marsha's often repeated misapplication clearly shows that she doesn't > understand the meaning of of the lines she's paraphrasing. > > In the MOQ, static patterns are never supposed to be primary realities. > Subjects and objects are already reduced in rank and otherwise portrayed as > secondary concepts. Static patterns are just concepts and nobody ever thought > that concepts are primary or independent realities. This is the main problem > with SOM, of course. It says that subjects and objects ARE real, that they > are NOT just concepts, and it says that values aren't really real. Like > Marsha, SOM says they're "just" subjective preferences that differ from > person to person. Basically, the MOQ reverses this idea. The MOQ says that > value is not only real, it is the primary empirical reality. According to the > MOQ subjects and objects, like everything else in the static world of > understanding, are just static concepts derived from the primary empirical > reality (DQ). > > But Marsha confuses the disease with the cure and ends up telling us that > "static value is empty of inherent existence and cannot be found". Thus she > has used the MOQ's critique of SOM's realism to undermine the MOQ itself. > Somehow, she thinks the static patterns or the MOQ are equivalent to SOM's > conventional reality such that they can both be whipped with the same stick. > She cannot distinguish Pirsig's solution from the problem it's meant to > solve. She is, in effect, using Pirsig's critique against Pirsig. These > Buddhist ideas are actually quite helpful and can rightly be used to clarify > and support the MOQ but Marsha uses them to undermine the MOQ and confuse its > central terms. > > It's not exactly clear how Marsha arrives at the idea that static patterns > are ever-changing but it's clear that she has confused static concepts with > dynamic reality. When we look at the textual evidence, we can see terms like > "ever-changing" are actually used to describe DQ. What could be more > confusing than describing a thing in terms of its opposite? It's hard to > imagine how a person could be more mistaken. The evidence very obviously > contradicts this bogus claim. > > As Ant McWatt puts it, for example, Dynamic Quality is "the continually > changing flux of immediate reality" or "awareness of the changing flux of > reality" or "the flux of immediate experience" or "the force of change in the > universe" Likewise, the Buddhist scholar Paul Williams describes this as "an > ever-changing flow of perceptions" and this "flow of perceptions" is > CONTRASTED with our static conceptual constructions. > > > > "[I]t is from experience that concepts such as subjects and objects arise; > such concepts do not create experience or perceptions. It is worth > emphasising here that subjects and objects are solely intellectual concepts > derived from reality as a whole. The problem with the terms "subjects" and > "objects" is that they have been ingrained into us from an early age so, > without question, we accept their literal existence. They don't. Subjects and > objects are just concepts and no concept exists outside the mind." (McWatt) > > "Dynamic Quality is the term given by Pirsig to the continually changing flux > of immediate reality while static quality refers to any concept abstracted > from this flux." (McWatt) > > "Experience (or Quality as Pirsig terms it) is an awareness of the changing > flux of reality before any conceptual distinctions such as subjects and > objects are made." (McWatt) > > "By static Pirsig doesn't refer to something that lacks movement in the > Newtonian sense of the word but is referring to any repeated arrangement... > i.e. any pattern that appears long enough to be noticed within the flux of > immediate experience." (McWatt) > > > "In order to understand what is being said here, one should try and imagine > all things, objects of experience and oneself, the one who is experiencing, > as just a flow of perceptions. We do not know that there is something "out > there". We have only experiences of colours, shapes, tactile data, and so on. > We also don't know that we ourselves are anything than a further series of > experiences. Taken together, there is only an ever-changing flow of > perceptions (vijnaptimatra)... Due to our beginningless ignorance we > construct these perceptions into enduring subjects and objects confronting > each other. This is irrational, things are not really like that, and it leads > to suffering and frustration. The constructed objects are the conceptualised > aspect. The flow of perceptions which forms the basis for our mistaken > constructions is the dependent aspect." (Paul Williams, "Mahayana Buddhism", > Routledge, 1989, p.83/84). > > "Dynamic Quality cannot be defined. It can only be understood intellectually > through the use of analogy. It can be described as the force of change in the > universe; when an aspect of Quality becomes habitual or customary, it becomes > static." (Wikipedia) > > > > > 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
