From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 23:29:24 GMT
Sam asked Anthony:
There's been some debate here and on MF about whether DQ is 'superior' or
'anterior' to SQ. I had been persuaded, by DMB amongst others, that Pirsig
sees DQ as primary, and SQ as secondary and derivative. A) do you agree with
DMB on that point, and B) is that compatible with the form/formlessness
contradictory identity which Scott is describing?
dmb objects:
You've misunderstood and mischaracterized my view, Sam. As I understand it,
DQ is the primary emprical reality and sq forms in its wake, but words like
"secondary" or "derivitive" strike me as too dismissive. If I ever used
those words or gave that impression, I'd regret it.
The idea that leaps to mind here is the MOQ's assertion that reality is
undivided, that Quality is undivided, that the static/Dynamic split is an
intellectual division. This division is a way to explain the dance between
freedom and order. It is a picture of two opposites, between dynamic freedom
and static order, that constitute a whole. All this just screams
contradictory identity, doesn't it? And its pretty clear that the words
"form" and "pattern" mean the same thing in this sense. The
"undifferentiated" continuum is "formlessness". I have quoted Wilber so many
times in an effort to express this idea that you're probably sick of it, so
I won't do it again.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 26 2005 - 23:43:49 GMT