At 10:00 PM +0000 11/20/99, Richard Edgar wrote:
>could it not be said, that in order understand the relation between the
>static and the dynamic, you must first understand that they are the same? i
>believe they are, you just look at both in a different way. the real
>difficulty, as i see it, is seeing the static AS dynamic, not seeing the
>dynamic IN the static.
The same eperience/phenomena is either static or dynamic, depending upon
where one is at the time. The dynamic culture shifts of yesterday become
the static social patterns in tomorrowland. Even at the nonorganic level,
entropy is both dynamic - as experience by an iron bolt as a whole _and_
static - as experienced by molecules that follow stable patterns of
oxydation.
Is it not true than the even if Quality is absolute - Dynamic Quality is
Relative?
>
>> Static quality can be defined and talked about.
>
>no, our interpretation of dynamic quality leads to the creation of static
>quality. pirsig said this himself, i cant remember the page number, but he
>was talking about hearing a song that just hits you, you buy it, you
>recommend it to your friends then you lose the feeling of impact you first
>had. dynamic becomes static when you SEE it. hense, dynamic IS static.
>the way you talk about it, it sounds as if they are different. you cannot
>describe a static pattern, you can only describe how the dynamic pattern has
>been SEEN by you and hense describe the form it has IN you. it is not
>static quality, it's how you interpret dynamic quality.
Dynamic Quality isn't visible until its percieved in some way - then in the
moment it's conceptualized, it forms a static intellectual pattern that
interacts with the whole of intellect and is no longer _Dynamic_ Quality.
The leading edge of the train of awareness is pre-awareness. They are
completely different modes, even though they are always both present in
every "object/event".
Not only is it easy to describe a static pattern, it is inevitable, since
any description is itself a static pattern of intellect.
>The static patterns of
>> values ARE the world we can touch and feel and understand, to a certain
>> extent anyway. DQ, on the other hand, is associated with mysticism and
>> is not definable precisely because it is NOT static, not patterned. We
>> can sail, but we can't capture the wind in a box. Like DQ, we can feel
>> the breeze but we can't nail it down. DQ is beyond static patterns, but
>> that doesn't mean we can't experience it. When we talk about DQ, we're
>> talking about mysticism, which is very hard to do.
>
>DQ is not mysticism, it's that feeling of wonder that hits in the belly and
>just rocks you. it's an inbuilt appreciation for something that you did not
>expect did not believe could happen or for something that is beyond
>expectation. it's not mystical, it's biological. mysticism implies a soul,
>that is nonsence!
Whew. So much to disagree with here. DQ is a feeling? That's all? Its
also the necessary condition for the existence of anything. Before you are
aware, you have to be aware of "something". SOM says "substance", but
that's even more ridiculous than the mythical soul you decry. MOQ says
what you percieve is Static Quality in response to Dynamic Quality. A
train just sitting on the tracks isn't any good to anyone. The train
moves, therefore we can conclude DQ exists, even though we can't percieve
it.
I don't agree either that mysticism implies a soul. Buddha basically gave
a mu answer to the question of reincarnation. One definition of soul is
the continuation of the self without a physical form. Buddhism's main goal
is to open the eyes of the self to the ridiculousness of the conception of
the "self" as something apart from the rest of the cosmos. The idea of a
"soul", then, is the very antithesis of mysticism.
>> The levels of static quality are much easier to talk about and to
>> understand. We ARE those patterns, and so is the cosmos we live in.
>
>but this is down to interpretation. can you describe your world?
Yes.
>you
>cannot because it is dynamic.
Everything I can percieve and describe is, by definition, static.
jc
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST