[MD] Static latching & faith

[David M]

DMB

A border was mentioned, to be precise a border that is crossed
when the possible or potential becomes actual. When a form
that was nothing but potential becomes actual is what we mean
by DQ. As for SQ, well the recognition of any pattern requires
cutting a line through what is being experienced and isolating a
part and giving it an identity and its own specific borders
to differentiate it from the whole that is open to an infinity of
such differentiations.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2006 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Static latching & faith


> SA asked:
> SQ is quite meaningless?
>
> dmb answers:
> No. I have an understanding of static quality. Its DM's explanation of
> "borders" that I don't understand.
>
> SA asked:
> Now whatever it (sq) means to you, does it ever come and go on any Pirsig
> level?
>
> dmb answers:
> I don't know what "come and go" is supposed to mean here. And I don't know
> what DM meant by it either. In fact, "come and go" is one of DM's vaguely
> poetic phrases that I complained about in the first place. What's the 
> deal?
> You guys are posting from a keg party and you're all falling-down drunk,
> right? Is that it? Well, that really hurts, man. Why wasn't I invited? Oh
> wait, I know why. Its a party for people who actually enjoy strings of
> vaguely poetic phrases...
>
> SA said:
> I know SQ is not meaningless, maybe DQ, yet, that could even be argued
> against.  SQ is full of definition having all sorts of lines and borders
> encasing something that delineates it with a value that is not nameless 
> (DQ)
> but has identity.
>
> dmb says:
> More seriously and with less cruelty, I agree that sq is full of 
> definitons,
> but other than that I really don't know what you mean either. And for 
> pretty
> much the same reason that I'm not getting DM's meaning either. Encasing
> something that delineates it? Huh? DQ is maybe meaningless but is not
> nameless and has identity? Huh? I have no idea what that's supposed to 
> mean.
> I thought DM use of the word "borders" was supposed to mean something in 
> the
> context in which he said it, which was a comment about transcendence and 
> the
> inadequacies of scientific empiricism with respect to transcendence. Is 
> that
> what you're talking about? If you're trying to help out there, I 
> appreciate
> it. But I just don't see it because I don't know what you mean.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/