Hi Dave,
Could there be more to static quality than concepts and percepts? Sure. The
Buddhists present the aggregates: the aggregate of form; the aggregate of
feelings; the aggregate of perception; the aggregate of volitional activities;
the aggregate of consciousness. It's a very detailed
dmb,
On Oct 1, 2013, at 6:00 PM, david buchanan wrote:
The MOQ starts with the source of undifferentiated perception itself as the
ultimate reality. The very first differentiation is probably `change`. The
second one may be `before and after`. From this sense of `before and after`
Marsha said to dmb:
And please, the first sentence of my definition of static patterns of value
stats Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple events),
conditionally co-dependent, impermanent and ever-changing, that pragmatically
tend to persist and change within a stable,
Hi DMB
In this basic FLUX OF EXPERIENCE, the distinctions of reflective thought,..
have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. (Pirsig in Lila)
dmb said: Yes, as Pirsig puts it (quoting other philosophers), we are
suspend in language so that all of our descriptions of nature are
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,
Hi David Morey and All,
IMHO Pirsig suggests there are indefinable, definable perceptions. To have
a flow of perceptions accepts a metaphysical DQ/SQ reality. Logic follows
observable reality. DQ/SQ metaphysics embodies logic, opening a door for
the perception of a logic of indefinable
dmb said to David Morey:
...Isn't it true that your pre-conceptual SQ is just the pre-existing objects
of SOM? This is why I've criticized it as a version of SOM. If that's not true,
how is your pre-conceptual static quality different from the objects of SOM?
David Morey replied:
...Here
dmb,
On Oct 2, 2013, at 12:20 PM, david buchanan dmbucha...@hotmail.com wrote:
Marsha said to dmb:
And please, the first sentence of my definition of static patterns of value
stats Static patterns of value are repetitive processes (multiple events),
conditionally co-dependent,
Marsha said:
All static patterns of value have been molded by this [self-object (dualistic)]
conditioning.
Arlo replied:
More appropriate to say, All MY static patterns of value have been molded by
this [self-object (dualistic)] conditioning. That would be accurate.
According to Pirsig,
dmb said:
Apparently you don't really understand what SOM means because your intended
denial is actually a confession. You've shown that your pre-conceptual SQ is
no different from the pre-existing objects of SOM. You're talking about
patterns as something that must exist prior to human
Marsha asked dmb:
Where did you get the idea you could apply the concept of 'change' to Dynamic
Quality when RMP insists it should remain concept-free?
dmb says:
Again, the idea that DQ is the ever-changing flux of experience is well
supported by the evidence. And like said, that description
David Morey said to dmb:
...You say the concept agrees with experience, well yes, but it cannot agree to
a flux, so what do we say? We can say it agrees with the dynamic patterns of
our experience, placing patterns in DQ rather than in SQ.
dmb says:
You want to rearrange the MOQ into the
DMB
My problem is with 'agree' what can agree to the flux mean? -please explain or
give example, how does conceptual SQ latch onto anything in our experience if
there are no pre-conceptual patterns found in our experience, and don't be a
fool this has nothing to do with SOM objects, in SOM
DMB
Concepts can agree to the pre-conceptual patterns/qualities we find in
experience, how can concepts agree to pure flux in experience, although maybe
point or indicate iS the starting place of concepts rather than agreement. The
concept horizon draws a line to mark out the sky from the
14 matches
Mail list logo
