From: Scott Roberts (jse885@cox.net)
Date: Thu Aug 11 2005 - 01:55:34 BST
David H,
> Scott said:
> The phrase "[DQ] is the origin of all things from a Dynamic understanding"
> is centric. From a differential point of view, there is no origin, that
> both
> "seeings" (from the static point of view and from the dynamic) are wrong.
> The problem with the MOQ is that it based on the dynamic "seeing:". And so
> what you say does not address the final point in the post you are
> responding
> to:
David said:
The MOQ isn't based on dynamic "seeing". "Seeing" is a static pattern, I
think that simply Dynamic Quality is ultimate in the MOQ.
Scott:
I was referring to the phrase "[DQ] is the origin of all things from a
Dynamic understanding." Isn't that the same as saying that DQ is ultimate in
the MOQ?
>
Scott said:: > "I do not give it a rest because your/Pirsig's form of
philosophical
> mysticism (what Magliola calls "centric Zen") is the basis from which
> Pirsig
> deals with intellect. Intellect divides, which according to your view is
> taken to lead one away from the center. But if the divided is understood
> to
> be in contradictory identity with the undivided, then one can appreciate
> that intellect creates, that it is DQ as well as SQ, that there is no
> "center", that the aesthetic requires division, and is not "beyond" it."
David said:
Again, the MOQ isn't based on a Dynamic Quality "center", center is a static
pattern. Also, there's no need for requirement, nature does the division
all by itself, and finally, Dynamic Quality isn't 'beyond' anything!
Scott:
Calling something "ultimate" is making it a center.
I'm fine with nature dividing. What I am objecting to is the notion that
there is something "undivided" that exists ontologically prior to that
dividing. Meanwhile, the MOQ puts down intellect (with respect to DQ) by
saying it divides. That is also what I am objecting to.
Scott said:>
> Now you do not agree with me that intellect is DQ. So what I am trying to
> point out is that the basis of our disagreement lies with the language
> that
> Pirsig uses to discuss DQ in Lila. I do not accept that language,
> preferring
> the language of contradictory identity, which is also applicable
> (necessary,
> IMO) to discussing intellect and the individual (the self). Because Pirsig
> uses the language of centric Zen in Lila, the self is seen as just SQ.
David said:
And herein lies the misunderstanding. In the MOQ, the self is not seen as
'just' SQ. Heaven forbid if it was! It's actually defined as the patterns
capable of apprehending/responding to DQ.
Scott:
But this puts DQ outside of the self. I say the self includes DQ. It's not a
misunderstanding. It's a disagreement.
David said:
What is
the cause of your desire for a DQ/SQ,SQ/DQ combination? To me this just
confuses the two concepts which cannot be distinguished from each other as
soon as the combination is made. If your having
trouble reconciling the two, perhaps I may point out that Quality and the
word is a within each of them.
Scott:
Because I prefer Nagarjuna's mystical philosophy to Pirsig's. In
Nagarjuna's, nirvana is samsara, or to translate that into MOQ terms, DQ is
SQ. This is an example of contradictory identity (since of course the
dynamic is opposite to the static). Trying to avoid confusion is the
problem. Doing so by privileging one or the other, as the MOQ privileges DQ
over SQ, takes one off the Middle Way. DQ and SQ are necessarily confused.
Scott said:
> Let me leave you with this question: I said that the aesthetic requires
> division. Do you agree? If so, does it make any sense at all to speak of
> an
> undifferentiated aesthetic continuum? If not, can you explain how one can
> have an aesthetic experience (or experience simpliciter) without division?
David said: This is DQ, apprehended eventually, by patterns.
Scott:
I don't follow. Didn't you imply above that an apprehended DQ is static?
- Scott
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 : Thu Aug 11 2005 - 02:12:26 BST