[MD] The Quality of Free Will

[MarshaV]

Dmb, You do enjoy talking to yourself, don't you?  



On Jul 19, 2011, at 2:32 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Andre said:
> ... But for pragmatic reasons the notion of using 'ever changing' when you mean 'stable' or 'static' is confusing because it's misleading"... I should also have added the 'forces' of regeneration, the stabilizing quality to latch the advances made. It is these repeated patterns that make them stable, recognizable.   To add to the confusion Marsha has gotten herself into is that she now denies DQ as being change. She says: "I consider DQ to be indeterminate - unknowable, undefinable, and undividable - unpatterned". Now, on its own this is a bit more like it. BUT she still considers DQ=sq and sq=DQ. She has said so repeatedly. 
> 
> dmb says:
> That's exactly how I see it. That's what I was getting at when I pointed out that genuinely paradoxical ideas are subtle and profound, whereas weasel-wordy equivocations are neither subtle nor profound. They're meaningless. She presents quotes from Ant's work and other scholars that talk about the paradoxical relationship between DQ and sq as if they were evidence for her claims, which are NOT paradoxical. Her claims are simply contradictory nonsense.
> 
> 
> In answer to a question, Pirsig qualified the idea that static quality is derived from DQ. He said that actually DQ is definable. We define it all the time but as soon as you do it is no longer DQ. It's static. And these two parts of experience are always working together. DQ is supposed to be present at the cutting edge of every moment, after all, and as soon as it comes, as James puts it, it soon fills itself with the nouns, verbs and adjectives of our conceptual order. 
> 
> 
> He also talks about this paradox in terms of enlightenment. When you're halfway there, which is known as 180 degree enlightenment because you've only completed half of the circle, static quality is seen as an illusion from which we should escape and DQ is the only thing that is ultimately real. But then 360 degree enlightenment is when you come all the way back around because you now see that static quality is not an illusion after all. Static pattens, so to speak, become transparent to the DQ from which they were derived in the first place. You can look right through them to see the DQ at their heart. 
> 
> 
> This paradoxical idea does not eradicate the distinction between static and Dynamic. In fact, this distinction becomes even MORE important as the explanation of their relationship to each becomes more subtle and more profound. To simply reverse of confuse the differences between the two is worse than useless. It destroys the subtlety and profundity of the relationship.
> 
> 
> To blur, confuse or reverse the meaning of the key terms is destructive no matter what the topic is. Imagine the issue was teen motherhood and somebody was reversing the meaning of the terms "pregnant" and "virgin". People wouldn't just be confused by that, they'd probably be alarmed, shocked and horrified at the things being said by such an abuser of the language. And the problem is even more complicated when using the central terms of a larger system of thought like the MOQ, wherein precision is even more crucial. 
> 
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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



___