LS Re: To define or not to define revisited


Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 21 Jan 1998 06:37:27 +0100


Hi Diana and TLS,

See my comments below:

Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> Hi Doug and squad
>
> All you have shown in any of these quotes is that Dynamic Quality
> cannot
> be determined.
Diana,

I disagree. See especially the quote on dynamic forces at the molecular
level:

>
> Your uncertainty principle would seem to say that we can predict
> static
> quality but we can't predict Dynamic Quality. If that's all it is then
> why not incorporate it into the Dynamic-static principle? If you can
> separate Quality into a part that is deterministic and a part that
> isn't
> then there is no contradiction. Why not just explain what the
> deterministic and non-deterministic parts are? It's far simpler than
> asserting that Quality both can and cannot be determined at the same
> time. And, again, this is not the same paradigm as the wave-particle
> phenomenon. Waves and particles are not two distinct concepts within
> light that have different characteristics. There are the same thing.
> DQ
> and SQ, however *are* two distinct concepts within Quality that have
> different characteristics. They are not the same thing.
>
> I'm quite happy to accept that DQ can neither be defined nor
> determined.
> To try and fit DQ into a deterministic pattern is to try and fit it
> into
> a SOM cause and effect pattern, and of course you can't do it.
>
> But DQ can still be experienced and consequently it can still be
> known.
>
> chp 32:
>
> "From the static point of view the whole escape into Dynamic Quality
> seems like a death experience. It's a movement from something to
> nothing. How can nothing be any different from death? Since a Dynamic
> understanding doesn't make the static distinctions necessary to answer
> that question, the question goes unanswered. All the Buddha could say
> was "See for yourself"."
>
> Pirsig talks about a "Dynamic understanding", this shows that he
> believes that DQ can be understood. But this understanding "doesn't
> make
> the static distinctions necessary to answer that question", in other
> words this understanding can't be explained in terms of static
> concepts,
> ie words. All the Buddha can say is "see for yourself". In other
> words,
> the Buddha can't tell you what it is, but he can point the way and you
> can experience it for yourself, and then you'll understand.
>
> Diana
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>

-- 
"It is not the facts but the relation of things that results in the
universal harmony that is the sole objective reality."

Robert M. Pirsig, --on Poincaré's assessment of classical reality, in --'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance,' p. 241, Bantam (paperback), 28th edition, 1982.

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST