[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[Heather Perella]

[Mark previously]
> This may be a problem simply for
> me to resolve? It seems to 
> > me that selfish ends can  be served by promoting
> that which isn't Dynamic  
> > simply by  stating it is Dynamic. A form of abuse
> > perhaps?


     [SA previously]
> Empty sq, a continual emptying of sq, that is the
> evolution of  sq that accepts dq.  What's the
> difference between the first dynamic and  the second
> dynamic in the above, "...which isn't Dynamic simply
> by stating  it is Dynamic."?  The difference I
> notice is you have inferred in the  secondly stated
Dynamic
> that it is simply stated.  The first Dynamic is  the
> Dynamic that you contrast in the second dynamic, for
> you state,  "...which isn't Dynamic..."  Thus, this
> Dynamic is Dynamic, whereas the  second dynamic is
> missing something, and you state it is just  being
> stated.  The first Dynamic, though, is being stated,
> too.   I guess your being careful.  You say dynamic
> can't be stated, but then  you state it, but then
> you carefulness is due to selfish promotion, in
which 
> is a form of abuse, you say perhaps.


> Mark: Hi SA,
> I'm having a problem following what you are saying
> here SA?

     I don't know.  Your mentioning of selfish
promotion and I quote you from above, "...that which
isn't Dynamic simply by stating it is Dynamic."  I was
just reflecting this same statement by you back to
you.  Yet, I added that by promoting something dynamic
is selfish, especially when only stating it is
dynamic.  I was focusing upon "...stating it is
Dynamic."  So, if somebody says, "Dynamic", then using
just that word, according to what your saying, isn't
Dynamic.  Yet, we know what dynamic means, right?  So,
why isn't dynamic, dynamic?  But, it seems, on second
look, your just saying, if somebody says 'something'
is dynamic, doesn't necessarily mean it is dynamic. 
I've been using quiet to understand dynamic. 
Quietness is an experience I enjoy while meditating. 
Without quiet muing everything away, I'm not quite
sure I'd understand dynamic quality.  So, yes, your
right, if something is said to be dynamic, yet,
doesn't necessarily mean it is dynamic, then truly
that is selfish, for 'anything' not dynamic is static
and ego inclined.  I don't know.  Maybe I didn't need
to say all this to comment upon this, sorry if it took
be too long to get to the point.  Did I get to your
point?  Did I understand what you said?  I just said
all this in as much of a different way, as possible,
to see if I comprehended your comment.  Did I
comprehend it?

     [Mark]
> Coherence is a trace of Dynamic influence described
> in sq terms.  If you come across a well maintained
motorcycle you
> can appreciate it as such.
> This is verifiable it seems to me.

     Sure.  By coherent, you mean well-maintained
motorcycle in this example, right?  Coherent sq is
running smooth and good being a trail of dq, thus,
riding well and in a good way.


     [Mark]
> If coherence may be placed between sq and DQ
> then something different  
> has indeed been said.

     Coherence is indeed between sq and dq, yet,
coherence is all sq, but
'sq-falling-back-upon-its'-no-self'.

     [Mark]
> You now have a new verifiable
> concept with which to  
> explore the Dynamic.

     How might I use coherence to verify and explore
dynamic?

     [Mark] 
> sq can't latch DQ.

     Exactly!  My point indeed.  Latch is a Pirsig
term that I'm using in this context as sq
intellectualizing dq (and I'm sure this latching
occurs upon all levels with dq).  Yet, as I've
explained this sq latching upon dq, for intellectually
we understand dq to be nothing.  I latch upon nothing,
therefore.  Thus, I'm not stuck.  To not be stuck is
to not fall into the Pirsig trappings in which may
happen if a static pattern doesn't latch properly with
another static pattern during evolution.  Yet, to
recognize that I, an sq, am latching upon nothing is
the same as saying:  no-self.  Understanding Zen
particulars such as self exist.  Yet, to get stuck
upon ego-self is not to recognize the bottomless
nature of Emptiness in Zen.  Thus, self exists, all
these particulars exist, yet, exist with nothing (not
nihilistic nothing notice).  Ego(-)self can be
replaced with ego(latch)self:  this is getting stuck
with egoism.  On the other hand, no(-)self replaced as
no(latch)self:  this is getting stuck with nothing. 
Can't get stuck with nothing, so, liberation, freedom,
Emptiness in Zen, and no trappings to use a term from
Pirsig.  This is all that I mean.  
     dq-sq, remember that.  How can dq and sq be
together known as quality?  Well, latching is
connecting, right?  As in static latch.  Well, to use
dq(latch)sq=quality holds the integrity in which
Pirsig brought-up from the very beginning of what
quality is.  No-self, bottomless, yet, in Zen this is
understood as experienced now without ego. 


     [Mark]
> sq latches sq after a
> Dynamic shift.

     Where is dynamic shift mentioned in Pirsig works?
 Maybe I could use this 'shift' as to not confuse
anybody.  Yet, when I explain:  latching to nothing as
no-self, I hope I didn't confuse anybody, that's not
my intention.

     [Mark]
> If you insist upon sq latching DQ then you're not
> using the moq SA.

     When you talk of coherence, your not using the
MoQ, but we are creative, so, maybe my explaining
helped creatively to introduce no-self of Zen with MoQ
discussion, as you did with coherence.  Yet, I did use
a Pirsig term:  latch.  This could either confuse
people, for people might be so used to understanding
latch in the context of static latch, or to use a
Pirsig term might actually enhance the quality of
these Pirsig terms, for one, to show how flexible
these understandings within the MoQ can be used in
ways to delve deeper into what the MoQ is.  For I did
not change what latch means from Lila, I just used
latch differently.


dog all curled up, night so dark it never ends,
SA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com