-----Original Message-----
From: glove <glove@indianvalley.com>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Friday, October 02, 1998 9:45 AM
Subject: Fw: What is DQ?
>hello all
>
>i tried to send this a few days ago, but for some reason it didnt go thru,
so i
>will try again.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: glove <glove@indianvalley.com>
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 10:17 AM
>Subject: What is DQ?
>
>
>>hi Ant, Jonathan and squad
>>
>>Ant wrote:
>>
>>Though there are no objects or subjects as traditionally
>>thought of within the MOQ, for pragmatic reasons (i.e. it
>>makes human existence much easier by employing concepts)
>>Pirsig terms the continually changing flux of immediate
>>reality "Dynamic Quality" while any concept abstracted from
>>this flux is termed a pattern of "static quality". It is
>>important to keep in mind that "Dynamic Quality" is not a
>>concept but only a referring term for immediate experience
>>
>>Ant, your writing is extremely well thought out and very informative. one
>of
>>the stumbling blocks to understanding Dynamic Quality is contained within
>>what we think of as objects. objects are those ideas that we can put
>>boundaries around and call cup, tree, person, idea, etc. it is our nature
>to
>>ignore that which we cannot put into boundaries, and that is Dynamic
>>Quality.
>>
>>Ant writes:
>>
>>i.e. "The purpose of the description of 'Dynamic Quality' as
>>'the continually changing flux of immediate reality' is to
>>block the notion that Dynamic Quality is some kind of
>>object. To try to take that definition as some kind of
>>philosophic object itself is to pervert the purpose for
>>which the statement was intended."
>>(Pirsig, Jan. 2nd 1998.)
>>
>>Ant, this passage strikes right at the heart of philosophy in general, for
>>it seems to me that to have a philosophy is to objectify the observations
>>one makes about the universe. for instance...
>>
>>Jonathan writes:
>>
>>DQ = potential
>>
>>My only nagging doubt is how much of it we have:-)
>>
>>Jonathan, i am afraid you have shifted the question to what potentiality
>is,
>>and at the same time, have diminished Dynamic Quality by attempting to
>>encapsulate it in potential. this is a prime example of the objectifying
>>process.
>>
>>all the words we use to explain Dynamic Quality have tendencies to put DQ
>>into boundaries, and if not, we are unsatisfied with the results we
obtain.
>>so it seems to me that i agree with Ant, in that a primary assumption in
>the
>>explanation of DQ must be that we will never be able to put it into
>>boundaries and objectify it. and i do believe we will discover the same
>>thing about static quality as well if we look closely enough at it.
>>
>>perhaps one key to a more expansive understanding of DQ is to see how we
>>construct our universe by forming fundamental agreements with our life
>>experiences, our subject/object thinking. furthermore, it seems to me that
>>the undifferentiated complement to actuality is a place to start looking
>for
>>questions. :)
>>
>>best wishes,
>>
>>glove
>>
>
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/index-2.html
>>
>>
>>
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST