[MD] lila's soliloquy

Wed Mar 28 18:09:53 PDT 2012

Mark,
I see your point, but find it to be based on superficial evidence. But I 
do understand why you would consider it even alarming to state that DQ 
and sq do not differ. This is exactly why I said, that in my opinion, 
Marsha should have claimed that while they do not differ, they also are 
not the same.

This here is a special problem regarding the nature of DQ. It does not 
apply to other splits, categorizations or patternings within the MOQ. I 
cite my letter to Pirsig:

"At first glance, one might be inclined to define Quality as a set, 
whose subsets are static quality and Dynamic Quality. But like I said, 
Dynamic Quality cannot be reduced to a set, and Quality is not 
equivalent to static quality. Therefore, Quality cannot be reduced to a 
set, either. If Quality cannot be reduced to a set, any possible 
difference between Quality and Dynamic Quality is beyond the grasp of 
set theory. "

Static quality is the only thing we can talk about in a well-defined 
discourse. The discourse in LILA is not well-defined - therefore it 
manages to introduce the concept of Dynamic Quality by way of metaphors 
and anecdotes. Therefore it makes to sense to compare static quality and 
Dynamic Quality - even to just say, that they differ.

Best,
Tuukka

29.3.2012 1:56, 118 wrote:
> Hi Tuukka,
> As I just explained to Marsha, I believe the core of MoQ is to present
> a metaphysics where sq and DQ are distinct.  Most people in this world
> have no idea what "DQ" or "sq" are, so they do not live as if they are
> distinct.  It is within MoQ that the distinction is made.  For me it
> just doesn't make sense why somebody would say that the distinction is
> not valid, in this forum.  The distinction did not exist until Pirsig
> made it up.
>
> Of course this form of distinction is in all the great metaphysics of
> the world, it is just not pointed to as DQ and sq.  Metaphysics is a
> structure.  We create concepts and then build on them.  Why is it
> necessary to throw these concepts away by saying that there is no
> distinction between them?  It is precisely the distinction which
> brings meaning, otherwise we are put back to a time before we read
> Lila.
>
> Anyway, that is my 2 cents (or whatever currency you use over there :-))
>
> Cheers,
> Mark
>
> On 3/28/12, Tuukka Virtaperko<mail at tuukkavirtaperko.net>  wrote:
>> Mark, Marsha
>>
>> what Marsha is doing here, is, I contend, the core of MOQ. The core of
>> MOQ is to think and live like that. The further theoretical
>> investigations are useful in various ways, but they are not the essence
>> of MOQ. At least not for anyone who doesn't take an unusually profound
>> delight in manipulating abstract concepts. Rather, they serve as
>> justification for the stance that it's not troublesome, dumb or even
>> confusing to think and live like that. Rigorous formulation of the
>> theory of MOQ may silence some of the skeptics, and maybe have
>> unprecedented applications in the future, but it's not living the MOQ.
>>
>> -Tuukka
>>
>>
>>
>> 28.3.2012 11:50, Tuukka Virtaperko wrote:
>>> Mark, Marsha
>>>
>>> Sorry for posting a short one. I try to not do that often. But I think
>>> all Marsha's answers here are good. She's not making any mistakes that
>>> I know of. Again, sentences like:
>>>
>>> "Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is
>>> not other than static quality."
>>>
>>> I'd say a slightly different thing: "Static quality is not other than
>>> Dynamic Quality, static quality is not same as Dynamic Quality" for
>>> clarity. But that's just minor tweaking.
>>>
>>> What I ecspecially like in these answers is that they are very
>>> compact, yet the point is clear.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Tuukka
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 28.3.2012 11:27, MarshaV wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 11:16 PM, 118<ununoctiums at gmail.com>   wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Marsha,
>>>>> This makes sense to me.  For you is thinking just static or does it
>>>>> have a dynamic component?
>>>> I cannot give an either/or answer.  Static quality is not other than
>>>> Dynamic Quality, Dynamic Quality is not other than static quality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> For me, most of thinking is following DQ, it is only when we
>>>>> "objectivize" it for the purposes of exchange (words) that it is
>>>>> temporarily static.  Our thinking is much more than words.
>>>> I might say patterns, even intellectual patterns, are much more than
>>>> words.  And I might say that human experience is much more than
>>>> concepts and percepts.  My definition of self/no-self includes
>>>> Dynamic Quality.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> An analogy would be to create value into an object through money.
>>>>> The value itself is not money, but we temporarily objectivize it
>>>>> with money.  Once we obtain something of value, the money is not
>>>>> important.  At least in theory.
>>>> Hmmm. It might be a workable theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> We follow DQ whether we like it or not, the point is to realize this
>>>>> and revel in it.  This is Zen, in my opinion.
>>>> I don't know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is simply a realization, and as such it is "nothing much", yet it
>>>>> is everything.
>>>> Yes, I cannot disagree with this statement.  But knowing bikes can be
>>>> ridden is not the same as knowing the experience of riding a bike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Enlightenment is realization, nothing changes.  We follow DQ, and
>>>>> isn't it wonderful!!
>>>> Hmmmmmmmm.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sent laboriously from an iPhone,
>>>>> Mark
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 6:20 PM, MarshaV<valkyr at att.net>   wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not "whatever you like", but "whatever you think".  First with
>>>>>> your question you create a world (and self) in time and space, and
>>>>>> then you are bound to search and create answers containing causes
>>>>>> and conditions and components to populate, explain and define it.
>>>>>> Those causes, conditions and components (bits and pieces of
>>>>>> pattern) that work best in your present become
>>>>>> reality.  But again I'd like to stress I have never said "whatever
>>>>>> you like", but "whatever you think".  Lila is pointing to the
>>>>>> thought-trap that represents the static (conventional) point-of-view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>> 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
>>
> 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
>