Re: MD Schematic.

From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Sat May 25 2002 - 00:54:43 BST


In a message dated 5/24/02 9:35:22 PM GMT Daylight Time,
onoffononoffon@hotmail.com writes:

<< Subj: Re: MD Schematic.
 Date: 5/24/02 9:35:22 PM GMT Daylight Time
 From: onoffononoffon@hotmail.com (elliot hallmark)
 Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
 Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
 To: moq_discuss@moq.org
 
 Hey Squok,
 
 you said:
 I have a feeling Dynamic quality and Static quality are NOT Quality with a
 capital Q!
 'DQ and SQ' is a Classic knife up job on Quality itself which remains
 undefined.
 Therefore, DQ would be equivalent with Romantic quality, and Static quality
 would be equivalent with Classic quality, which is exactly what Pirsig says
 they are in ZMM.
 
 
 I say:
 Well, just because neither are Quality with a capital Q doesnt mean they are
 the same. Infact, having them the same conflicts with Pirsigs realization
 that romantic and classic quality are not the best division for the MoQ and
 that DQ and SQ are. Pirsig says they are equivilant and yet he hadn't
 devised DQ/SQ at this point. he chosses classic and romantic to seperate
 two types of people, and i dont think Pirsig means to imply that romantics
 are more dynamic and therefor of a higher order than classics (whose
 divsions of the world flux as quickly as romantics perceptions do).
 
 Squok:
 If Classic quality emerges from the undifferentiated holistic
 harmony of Romantic quality, does that mean that all static actualities are
 'already there' in Romantic quality as potential?
 
 Elliot:
 replace classic and romantic with static and Dynamic and i refer you to the
 buddhist truth "samsara is nirvana". The world is undivided and infinitely
 divisable, the potential for static patterns (divsions) is inherent in the
 mind of the sentient being. the world does not change, not does the
 individual, bur perception shifts from delusion to Quality.
 
 Again, the classic romantic split was devised to explain why some enjoy art
 and some enjoy philosophy. artists and philosophers see the same thing
 inorder to derive their respective perceptions, but that is DQ not romantic.
   Artists find romantic and philosophers and mechanics find classic.
 Mechanics often dont like abstract art nor atists equations. the confusion
 here stems from what i think to be Pirsigs confusion before finally
 realizing the structure of the current MoQ.
 
 Elliot
>>

Hi Elliot,
Not sure i agree with you?
ZMM is a personal journey, so metaphysical knife jobs in that work follow
inward to enlightenment.
You suggest this in your writing above when you discuss 'different people'?
Lila suggests more concern with interpreting the volume of empirical values
generated by science.
So, ZMM the soul; Lila the empirical interpretation of value beyond self but
measured by its expanded rationality.
In either sense, Quality is central.
Postulating a Dynamic/Static split may extra-personaly equivalent to an
intra-personal Romantic/Classic split?

All the best,
Squonk.

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 - 16:02:16 BST