[MD] desires

[John Carl]

Andre says:

John asked, and Mary seconded:
>
> can you demonstrate any object or pattern that is truly static, in all of
> experience?
>
> Andre:
> Just a quick one here. The key words here are 'in all of experience'.


John:

Maybe I should have said, "in the entire universe" or "all of creation" so
you'd more fully get the gist of my point.

Andre:


> The MOQ is a static intellectual pattern of value. The question suggests
> that Pirsig's MOQ IS experience, IS reality. This is NOT the case. It is a
> static (i.e. stable)intellectual description of... .
>

John:

I don't think the MoQ is experience.  I think the MoQ is a description of
experience.  I don't see how you get this from my question.  And as far as
the MoQ being static (i.e. stable) ... not so much in my experience.


Andre:


> It is a finger pointing towards.
>
> DQ is a static INTELLECTUAL REFERENCE to Quality. Experience cannot be
> contained IN a metaphysics no matter what it is called. This has been the
> fallacy of the 'container problem'. The MOQ is a static intellectual
> description of experience. It is NOT the experience itself.
>
> John:

I agree completely.

Andre:

Is this so difficult to fathom?
>
> John:

Nope.

Andre:

The logical conclusion towards which John, Mary, Mark , Marsha (did I leave
> anyone out?) are driving is nihilism, absolute relativism (and nothing
> in-between), frivolity, illusion. It stops all conversation, all dialogue
> because all is ever changing, nothing to hang your hat on...the street I
> walked on 2 minutes ago a roaring river the next (and I forgot to bring my
> boat). This is fallacy!
>

John:

The dynamic nature of all reality is not a fallacy, Andre. It's just the way
things are.  What I call fallacy is the rigid constructions of small-minded
control freaks who want to freeze conceptualizations and keep them in their
hip pocket and beat others over the head with their homophiliac urges.

Andre:

>
> It is just silly. No, it is intellectually insulting and
> dishonest...Pirsig's LILA is quite clear on this. Start reading ....again.
>
> John:

Thanks for your opinion.  A little less bombast and a little more logical
explanation would be appreciated.