[MD] The first cut.

[X Acto]

Marsha said:
So, dmb, that would be "static patterns of value are ... ever-changing", not 'ever-changing static patterns'.  The misrepresentation changes the emphasis.


dmb says:

It's oxymoronic nonsense either way. The terms are contradictory regardless of the order of their appearance. No matter which comes first in the equation, you are equating opposites.
Why can you not see the simple logic of this objection? It seems to be fairly obvious to everyone else. 


                        
Ron still peddeling cheap lemonade:
Well, perhaps this can spur a conversation about doing something like equating opposites and how
this effects the attempt at an explanation of the "one-ness" of contrarities, one/many ect..ect..
Having said that and having emphasized that value lies at the root of this "one-ness" and for the
most part what we mean as followers of Pirsig is that value IS this "one-ness", we find that meaning
takes on a whole new importance. 
 
While Marsha seems like she likes the deconstruction phase and places alot of her attention on it
what seems more interesting is the reconstruction of meaning it also seems like it is often the most
lacking aspect of our Quality point of view. So we find in the following of DQ the development of
clarity yields the highest satisfaction it yeilds the most reward, when we point to direct experience
and the now we point to clarity. I think that is the difference.
 
If Value is the ground stuff of reality and all static patterns are composed and migrate towards Value
then to say that this Value is ultimately meaninglessness would seem to be inconsistant with what we
orginally understand and posit about Value. 
 
.