ZYKAINE:
IMO to pursue DQ is to pursue emotional experience. Even if the MOQ were
right (and I am not saying it isn't) this would leave it's last word open to
debate because I don't think that we can make an experiential distinction
between DQ and emotion. So the MOQ could equally tell you to pursue dynamic
emotional experience. But this would leave MOQ open to ridicule. I think
Pirsig can't tell the difference either because he has such problems in
trying to explain it and none of them fit with my own experience, unless DQ
is substituted by emotion. No wonder so few can accept Pirsigs MOQ. I am
open to be persuaded otherwise: So, in pursuance, can any of you recognise
the difference between pursuing DQ and pursuing emotions?
I hope there will be some answers - for your own sakes also?
ROG:
There is a big difference. Dynamic Quality is the cutting edge of
experience... the flash of insight leading to the new theory... the sense of
quality causing us to jump off the stove... the value between particles
leading to gravitational pull... the first hint of the experiment toward
divided government to control excess... the raw sensation hitting a baby's
eyes.
Emotion and theories and pain and subjects and objects and interstellar
forces and constitutions and past experience are all static quality. They
are patterns derived from immediate experience. DQ is not emotion. Emotions
are patterns derived from DQ.
The advice "pursue DQ" doesn't mean "be emotional". It means pursue new
experience (including emotional experience) and create new patterns. It
means evolve. It means experiment. It means live in the moment, not in the
rut carved by your past. It means recognizing that you and your world are
creatable now.
Rog
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:42 BST