[MD] Dewey's Zen

[Ant McWatt]

Andre,

There might be one or two other terms I used in David's exercise that need clarifying but it's good someone is taking note of at least one!

You stated March 28th:

> I seem to remember Pirsig saying the same thing during the AHP 

> conference, that, as soon as you start conceptualizing, thinking about 

> it, the activity of symbol manipulation, you are in the static. That is, 

> the activity is a static exercise/a static process following static rules.

The exact quote would be helpful but, yes, Pirsig has written/said similar elsewhere.  But to clarify, I'd say the activity of conceptualising is Dynamic (i.e. the creative artistic part) while the rules and symbols themselves are static.  

For instance, while I write this e-mail, that 
is Dynamic.  By the time you read it, it will be static.  A philosophy 
discussion is Dynamic - while it happens.  A recording of the discussion
will be static.  Same with a philosophy book (it's a static product of a - largely - Dynamic process).  Moreover, any NEW thoughts you
 have inspired by the philosophy book (or my e-mail or the discussion) 
is Dynamic.

Hope that helps,

Anthony. 




> Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:08:18 +0200
> From: andrebroersen at gmail.com
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Dewey's Zen
> 
> Andre:
> Thank you Anthony and dmb for presenting us with both your versions of 
> this fun experiment.
> 
> I do have a question though with regards to what Anthony said which has 
> nagged me for quite some time prior to this as well.
> Anthony said:
> Thinking is [Dynamic but] could not even exist without the felt 
> qualities of [the aesthetic continuum]:
> 
> Andre:
> I understand that 'thinking' is a (let's for clarity's sake say) ongoing 
> process/activity. But is it "Dynamic" (with a capital D)?
> 
> My understanding of Dynamic, as used within the MOQ is that its result 
> is always new (because it shatters static patterns) and that it is 
> 'arrived' at at that moment of not-thinking/not intellectualizing (This 
> is how I read the example in ZMM of Poincaré and e.g. the classroom 
> method...and the heart attack patient and the person experiencing a 
> storm and the hearing of this wonderful new song).
> 
> I seem to remember Pirsig saying the same thing during the AHP 
> conference, that, as soon as you start conceptualizing, thinking about 
> it, the activity of symbol manipulation, you are in the static. That is, 
> the activity is a static exercise/a static process following static rules.
> 
> I mean, in ZMM the narrator 'laments' the realization that he hasn't had 
> a new thought in years. I presume he wasn't walking around as a zombie. 
> No, he just kept his nose clean, did odd jobs here and there and lived 
> an 'ordinary' family life. I wonder how many of us are in that same 
> boat. We may think we are wonderfully dynamic and what have you, but 
> most appear just variations on the same theme(this is my understanding 
> of static quality patterns).
> 
> A bit like Pirsig's comment on the activities of the conservatives: 
> "They are just doing the usual cover-up for the rich in their age-old 
> exploitation of the poor". (LILA, p 225) And, let's be honest: they come 
> up with some very creative ideas but still... .
> 
> What am I missing? I would really appreciate some clarification on this.




.