[MD] Changes in 2011

[MarshaV]

Greetings Andre, 

It's "the Dynamic is the essential nature of the static" in Ant's PhD.

"In consequence, Pirsig thought ‘Quality’ was better divided metaphysically into the Dynamic and static – primarily because the aesthetic, mystic and scientific aspects of reality can be taken account of by this dichotomy and, as the Dynamic is the essential nature of the static, there remains, essentially, only one reality of Quality, not two. This division of Quality into the Dynamic and static also assists his metaphysics to explain why an experience of a record or a painting can be variable depending on the viewer."
    (McWatt, Anthony, 'A Critical Analysis of Robert Pirsig’s Metaphysics of Quality', p.70) 


In Buddhism it is Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form. 
    (Heart Sutra)  


Marsha





On Jan 7, 2011, at 12:29 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Ian to Andre:
> 
> Yes, and everything else (YouTube included, even FaceBook) is the
> physio/bio/socio/intellectual cultural context for understanding and
> living it.
> 
> Andre:
> Agree Ian, and then I will also expect that anyone who makes a reference to these, or, for that matter reels off long/short quotes about something they have read, makes a specific statement of how it relates to the MOQ which is discussed here.
> 
> I find it interesting that you add the 'living it' at the end of your sentence. Assuming for a minute that what you mean by this is 'experiencing it' it has the tendency to blur some distinctions which are crucial to keep in mind when discussing Pirsig's MOQ. Marsha is an easy example to use in this context as she is superimposing this 'living it' onto the MOQ and thereby blurring, for example the distinction between DQ and sq. For Marsha these are the same (correct me if I am wrong Marsha). Bodvar made a similar assertion in this respect by suggesting that Pirsig's MOQ IS experience which led his his non-acceptance of Pirsig's assertion that the MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value.
> 
> It makes discussion of the MOQ (as a static intellectual pattern of value) almost impossible as for ex. Marsha's responses (dismissals,evasions) make clear.
> 
> I may be off track here and am interested in your observations to the contrary(if you hold any).
> 
> Ian:
> People need to stop casting aspersions about the "some", the
> "brigade", the "old guard", the "fits", the "misfits", and if they
> have a specific issue, name specific names and statements. Show some
> trust and respect in other words.
> 
> Andre:
> Not sure if you are implying that I show distrust or disrespect Ian. If so, I apologize (and note the start of your sentence with 'people'.) I did not specify anyone in particular because dmb mentioned some specific persons in a previous post and I wanted to avoid repetition. I also made clear (I hope) that I do not enjoy the use of these labels. In this sense I am sad to note that, over the past few months, a notion of 'us' and 'them' has crept in which doesn't add any sense of trust or respect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html


 
___