[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Hi Mark, All:

Dynamic Quality isn't concept free. Once you name something, it becomes a 
concept. But it's a concept like "ineffable" is a concept -- pointing to 
something that cannot be defined. And that leaves intellect impotent. Intellect 
can only deal with defined terms. Pirsig admitted as much. But, he said go 
ahead anyway: "Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics 
is a part of life." (Lila, 5)  So, yes. Even though we can't think about DQ, go 
ahead and think about it - another paradox illustrating critical thinking's 
feet of clay.

Platt 


On 7 Nov 2010 at 19:09, 118 wrote:

Hello Everyone,
I would disagree with the notion of keeping Dynamic Quality concept free.
 This is similar to the religious concept of not worshiping false idols.
  When the prophet told the worshipers of Allah to not make concepts of
their God, such a things was punishable by death.   I do not think we need
to return there.  Such a dictate does not work, and is counter to the
expansion of intellectual thought that may be happening through the
internet.

Concepts are for manipulation, there should not be anything tabu about them,
to say otherwise in not rational, and somewhat mystical.  Such premises
would certainly not help expand the notion of Quality to others.  If we try
to keep dynamic quality concept free, this will be at the expense of MOQ,
and is highly destructive.  Progress is measured through the introduction of
concepts.  The last thing that I want to do is sit in a cave meditating on
dynamic quality without being able to think about it.

Just my opinion,
Thank you all,
Mark


> Hi Ron
>
> Dynamic Quality is not meaningless... I am not sure where you get that
> idea. Dynamic Quality is what's better.
>
> Ron:
> > Killing intellectual patterns is useful in times of stuckness
> > when we are faced with gumption traps. The now of experience
> > simplifies meaning by returning to the root, through this we
> > often become unstuck in our thinking.
> > That is not reducing Dynamic quality to meaninlessnes or
> > relativism that is recognizing it as the source of meaning
> > the grounding of our intellectual patterns to the most meaningful.
>
> Dan:
> Dynamic Quality is not to be associated with relativism. You may have
> gotten that idea on account of our discussion on "betterness" and how
> that concept is dependent-arising. Please pay attention to the word
> concept. But remember, Dynamic Quality must be kept concept-free. As
> far as killing intellectual patterns, I am not sure that that is to be
> associated with Dynamic Quality either. This now of experience IS
> Dynamic Quality. The sorting that goes on after is where intelletual
> concepts arise.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan