[MD] Dewey's Zen

[David Harding]

Hi Ant (and dmb mentioned),

I think this is the one area where I disagree with both yourself and dmb.

Firstly, I actually agree with your qualification that term Dynamic means DQ at work. Furthermore, in line with your qualification - some (static) things are indeed more Dynamic than others. So, I have no troubles saying that something has been *affected* by DQ more than something else.  

Where I disagree is in dmb's qualification where we say there is Dynamic Quality and static quality in everything and that all things have varying degrees of DQ and sq. We cannot say that some thing has largely or 'more' Dynamic Quality in it.  That makes no sense to me.  Dynamic Quality isn't some concept which can be quantified next to static quality like this. Dynamic Quality isn't anything.  So, as I said, I certainly agree that some (static) things are more Dynamic than others but in the end all we can ever talk about is static quality.  Because everything is static quality and DQ is nothing. 

Furthermore, I think saying that there is varying degrees of Dynamic Quality and static quality in things muddies the beautifully clear, logical distinction that exists between Dynamic Quality and static quality as laid out by RMP in Lila.  If there does not exist this clear distinction between DQ and sq then pretty quickly everything we say about them become meaningless.   So, some static quality can certainly be more Dynamic than others. That is, it has been affected and adjusted to Dynamic Quality more than something else. But DQ is not 'in' that thing. For everything is static quality.

-David


On 29/03/2012, at 10:55 PM, Ant McWatt wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ant McWatt stated March 28th:
> 
> 
> "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."
> 
> David Harding asked March 29th:
> 
>> Hi Ant,
>> 
>> When you say Dynamic here, am I to assume you mean Dynamic Quality? So are you saying, for instance, that a philosophy discussion as it is happening is Dynamic Quality?  Or are you saying that your use of the term Dynamic is something else entirely? I know from experience discussing the MOQ here; that a lot of confusion begins when we get into these details.. 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> As far as the MOQ is set out in LILA, when I say "Dynamic", I'm using the term as a short cut for "Dynamic Quality at work".  So, to take the above quote of mine from March 28th that you referred to, it could be more accurately re-written as: 
> 
> "For instance, while I write this e-mail, that is [largely] Dynamic [Quality at work].  By the time you read it, it will be static.  A philosophy discussion [worthy of the name] is [also largely] Dynamic [Quality at work] - 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 [Quality at work]."
> 
> 
> I've also qualified the above illustrations with the word "largely" as I think Dave Buchanan's comment (pasted below) that Dynamic Quality and static quality co-operate in every moment is an important qualification.  With the possible exception of some "meditative" states, experience will always be a mixture of the Dynamic and the static.  So while the average philosophy discussion will tend to be more Dynamic than a
> philosophology class (the latter tending to devote a larger amount of time to 
> established ideas and thinkers); both will be a mixture of Dynamic Quality and static quality patterns. 
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Anthony. 
> 
> ====================================================
> 
> David Buchanan stated March 28th:
> 
> The artful motorcycle mechanic, for example, cannot ride the Dynamic cutting edge of his repair work without also having a whole lot of static patterns under his belt. And this motorcycle is an analogy for any rational system. This is one of the points I was hoping to raise with this exercise, by the way.
> 
> One of the false impressions I've seen floating around way too much is that experience has to be just one or the other, has to be either Dynamic or static. I think instead that DQ and sq cooperate in every moment, like they are "married" to each. Static patterns are derived from and lead back to DQ or, as it's expressed above, static thinking couldn't even occur without DQ as it's felt and lived and that ongoing flux of experience is what the static patterns are about. You gotta have both, simultaneously, not one then the other or one to the exclusion of the other. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 		 	   		  
> 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