[MD] The hard question

[MarshaV]

Andre,

There is nothing to say about DQ, the Ultimate Truth.  It is indeterminate.  Do you not understand 'indivisible, undefinable and unknowable'?  
 
 

"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.

"Nagarjuna and Pirsig also have a similar recognition of two types of truth; the ‘static’ conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) and the ‘Dynamic’ ultimate truth (paramattha- sacca)."
     (MoQ Textbook)  



Marsha 
 
 



On May 30, 2012, at 4:52 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Marsha quoted Andre:
> There is no 'fundamental truth contained within the MOQ.
> 
> To which Marsha replies:
> So what is this trickery? We are not dealing with the Ultimate Truth.
> 
> Andre:
> The 'trickery' lies in your court Marsha. YOU are the one dealing constantly in 'Ultimate Truths' i.e the 'emptiness' or DQ as the Ground of static patterns of quality. All I implied was that all truths arising from an understanding within and from a MOQ perspective are provisional. That is why I placed the caveat. I am talking one thing and you are talking (when the situation is appropriate) your thing...and change when it suits you. That is what I call slithering. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Intellectually on dubious grounds.
> 
> But you still don't get it. Or rather, you refuse to accept it despite the evidence and arguments. Consider your next line:
> 
> Marsha:
> 
> "As Hagen 202 (1997, p.30) notes, one of the most fundamental truths noted by the Buddha is that all aspects of our experience are in constant flux and change. According to the Buddha, when a person ignores this truth they subject themselves to dukkha."
> 
> This quote stands as stating that static (patterned) value is in "constant flux and change".
> 
> Andre:
> NO! Marsha, gawd how can you be so close and yet so far away! I mean, you've got your nose IN it. Do you actually read the quotes you quote and understand what they mean and what they point towards?
> 
> When Hagen (and Gautama Buddha) talk about 'experience' they talk about DQ. DQ is the 'immediate flux', the 'aesthetic continuum', (personally I do not equate DQ with 'change' or 'flux'). DQ ....................whatever. DQ and 'change'. What is there to change...or flux?
> 
> The 'change' and 'flux', the 'great working within' is 'noticed' within and as static quality patterns. As soon as it is noticed it is static. And this is a long way from saying that 'static (patterned) value is in constant flux and change'.
> 
> Pirsig makes it very clear in LILA. Static patterns change in response to DQ. They do not change by themselves. You refuse to accept that.
> 
> This is your blind spot Marsha, if I may say so.
> 
> Marsha:
> Or as I like to explain it:
> 
> 'ever-changing ... that pragmatically tend to persist and change within a stable, predictable pattern.'
> 
> Andre:
> Well there you go again. Change the definition of static patterns as much as you like, 'ever-changing' as 'static' just does not gell and you should know that by now.
> A pragmatically ever-changing static predictably persisting stable pattern...mmmmm. What do you think? Can you seriously build a metaphysics on that one? MARSHA.............. THAT IS CRAP!!!!!!!!!
> 
> But dear MOQ folks, it ain't finished yet (sigh). In the 'expanded rationality' thread Marsha says this to Andre:
> 
> 'Start a discussion on the wisdom to distinguish between DQ and sq if you'd like'.
> 
> Andre:
> Not only does Marsha hereby plainly shows that she has absolutely no idea about the difference between DQ and sq. No, in fact, she denies the distinction... resulting in the mess of having no idea what we are doing here on the Pirsig MOQ discuss in the first place! Oh dear.
> 
> It doesn't take that much wisdom Marsha. Whatever we discuss is static, yes? Do you understand this?
> Quality is not part of the MOQ. Okay? It does not belong here okay? It is not subsumed within the MOQ okay? Do you even remotely intuit this? Can you intellectually grasp this?
> 
> You fail to accept that Pirsig's MOQ is a static intellectual static pattern of quality. And Quality should NOT become a conceptualized intellectual piece of chess.
> 
> Personal meandering: why, oh why did Gautama leave his not very comfortable position under the bodhi tree? BECAUSE IT WAS BETTER TO DO SO! Buddha knew quality alright!
> 
> Jeez, and here I thought that we could be on the trail of 'agreement' about a few other things as well Marsha.
> 
> Sad really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___