[MD] The first cut.

[MarshaV]

Greetings again Andre,

In the 'AN INTRODUCTION TO ROBERT PIRSIG’S METAPHYSICS OF QUALITY' of which Anthony McWatt writes "Though this text is largely based on the work for my Ph.D. thesis, it is has been written for the philosophy under-graduate in mind.", he also states:

"Moreover, Nagarjuna (1966, p.251) shares Pirsig’s perception that the indeterminate (or Dynamic) is the fundamental nature of the conditioned (or static):

    "In their ultimate nature things are devoid of conditionedness 
    and contingency belongs to this level. This very truth is 
    revealed by also saying that all things ultimately enter the 
    indeterminate dharma or that within the heart of every 
    conditioned entity (as its core, as its true essence, as its
    very real nature) there is the indeterminate dharma. 
    While the one expresses the transcendence of the ultimate 
    reality, the other speaks of its immanence. The one says 
    that the ultimate reality is not an entity apart and wholly 
    removed from the determinate, but is the real nature of the 
    determinate itself."


This is not a forum devoted solely to the relationship between RMP and W. James, or solely devoted to pragmatism and radical empiricism.  


Marsha



Sent from my iPad

On Jan 23, 2012, at 9:40 AM, Andre <andrebroersen at gmail.com> wrote:

> Marsha to Andre:
> 
> I most certainly did not reference "DQ=sq" in any of these posts; that is another bit of misrepresentation on your part.
> 
> Andre:
> Trouble with your longer term memory Marsha? I invite anyone to dive into the archives where you have made that statement...more than once. Your reference to 'these posts' is your attempt at evasion (which is a usual tactic on your part). I am therefore not misrepresenting your belief. In fact, you once again state it:
> 
> "So to static quality does not differ from Dynamic Quality, and Dynamic Quality does not differ from static quality".
> 
> This may be true from a 'mystical' perspective but we are talking MOQ here which has a pragmatic, radical empiricist component in it.  And for good reason. I invite you and any of your mystic friends to experience the difference between diving, head first, in a pool of water as contrasted with diving in a pool filled with ice. (amazing what difference one degree Celsius in temperature can make)
> 
> Sorry Marsha, not very convincing. I am afraid we are living in the temporal/spacial world of everyday affairs. You know  buying,selling,sneezing,working,fucking,farting,painting,thinking,dying...just to name a few. It is the world of everyday, conventional reality. That's the one we are living in and Pirsig's MOQ as a description of this temporal/spacial reality is brilliant because it incorporates everything (sq) and refers to nothing (DQ).  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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