From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jul 30 2004 - 17:48:29 BST
Hello everyone
>From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: Re: MD the metaphysics of freedom
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 15:19:26 EDT
>
>
>Mark 27-7-04: Pirsig uses the term Quality in two ways - One to refer to
>all
>of reality and the other in a common language sense.
Hi Mark
I believe the reason Quality is capitalized is to denote a difference in the
way the author uses the word, yes.
>Now if you are presented
>with two violins, one a mass produced 'stamped and glued job' and the other
>a
>strad, which one is better?
>One may say, "the strad is higher Quality," and many may agree, but i feel
>the MOQ has more to say...
>Violin, musician, social meaning and intellectual articulation are missing
>from the statement, "The strad is higher Quality than the mass produced
>violin,"
>although this statement is certainly empirically verifiable.
>The mass produced job may be played well by a master violinist like Stephan
>Grappelli for example, but how much better played the strad, and why?
>Coherence may be used here to indicate the flavour of moment in more
>detail.
>Do you feel this may be more suited to a society of MOQ driven
>intellectuals
>Dan? A society such as ours, here in the MOQ.org?
Are you saying the term coherence is a "strad" compared to the term quality?
I couldn't disagree with you more.
>
>
>Could you point me to where I could find the audio lecture?
>
>Mark 27-7-04: Please follow this link:
>http://www.conferencerecording.com/conflists/ahp93.htm
>You can order a copy from here, i don't have a transcript i'm afraid.
>The film 'a river run's through it' is simply mentioned by Pirsig once on
>this recording when he is remembering the view from his teaching room
>discussed
>in ZMM. I assume Pirsig has watched the film because he refers to it in
>order
>to convey the beauty of this area to the conference members.
I checked out the link you provided but it's out of date. Actually I came
across the same site some time ago and it was out of date then too. I'd be
leery of ordering anything from there. Thank you anyway.
>
>Perhaps this quote of Robert Pirsig's in LILA'S CHILD will reduce the
>confusion: "In German there are two words for “know,” kennen and
>wissen. The
>
>Zen approach reduces Wissenschaft (scholarly knowledge) and thereby
>improves
>Kenntnis (recognition without intellectual interposition)."
>
>RMP expounds on how a person buys a car and then begins seeing the same
>cars
>everywhere that they never noticed before. The same is happening in the
>case
>of coherence perhaps. And it has something to do with what I said about
>knowing but having to remember the knowing.
>
>Mark 27-7-04: The same topic is discussed on the AHP93 tape.
>Coherence is situational - it's a moment in which DQ directs patterns into
>coherence.
>I like this diagram:
>
>Event stream (DQ) SODV --------> Coherence <-------- Evolution (DQ) Lila.
>
>Coherence is sq-sq tension - the optimum patterned state; the best of all
>states.
>Event stream (DQ) SODV --------> sq-sq <-------- Evolution (DQ) Lila.
>
>As sq becomes ever more sophisticated and varied coherence always remains
>harmonious.
>Coherence is the sweet spot.
>Event stream (DQ) SODV --------> sweet spot <-------- Evolution (DQ) Lila.
>
>Coherence is freedom from patterning within patterning.
>Event stream (DQ) SODV --------> freedom <-------- Evolution (DQ) Lila.
>This is why i feel coherence is stillness in action because action is a sq
>pattern also.
>A master, 'makes it look easy' because the master does not try. The master
>is
>a highly coherent pattern.
>
>Make any sense Dan?
It appears you believe Dynamic Quality is a positive influence on static
quality. I had the opportunity to ask Robert Pirsig about this during the
work on the LC project:
Dan Glover: When you say Dynamic Quality is always affirmative, at first I
took it to mean that DQ is always positive. By comparing all three terms
[dictionary definitions omitted] I sense a common thread of evaluation
leading to confirmation, which is neither positive or negative. Those terms
come later, after further intellectualization. Is that your thinking too?
Robert Pirsig: Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative
was not a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial
definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality
someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it
and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question,
"What is Dynamic Quality?" is the ancient Vedic one -- "Not this, not that."
(LILA'S CHILD, page 527)
So I would say that when you construct diagrams as the one above you are
taking what is said about Dynamic Quality and making it into a static
pattern which can then be opposed by someone else. It doesn't seem to be a
wise move.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
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 : Fri Jul 30 2004 - 17:50:50 BST