> >could it not be said, that in order understand the relation between the
> >static and the dynamic, you must first understand that they are the same?
i
> >believe they are, you just look at both in a different way. the real
> >difficulty, as i see it, is seeing the static AS dynamic, not seeing the
> >dynamic IN the static.
>
> The same eperience/phenomena is either static or dynamic, depending upon
> where one is at the time. The dynamic culture shifts of yesterday become
> the static social patterns in tomorrowland. Even at the nonorganic level,
> entropy is both dynamic - as experience by an iron bolt as a whole _and_
> static - as experienced by molecules that follow stable patterns of
> oxydation.
isnt that what i was saying? or were you agreeing with me?
> Is it not true than the even if Quality is absolute - Dynamic Quality is
> Relative?
What do you mean by "Quality is absolute"? depending on what this means,
either either agree or disagree. please elaborate a little.
> >> Static quality can be defined and talked about.
> >
> >no, our interpretation of dynamic quality leads to the creation of static
> >quality. pirsig said this himself, i cant remember the page number, but
he
> >was talking about hearing a song that just hits you, you buy it, you
> >recommend it to your friends then you lose the feeling of impact you
first
> >had. dynamic becomes static when you SEE it. hense, dynamic IS static.
> >the way you talk about it, it sounds as if they are different. you
cannot
> >describe a static pattern, you can only describe how the dynamic pattern
has
> >been SEEN by you and hense describe the form it has IN you. it is not
> >static quality, it's how you interpret dynamic quality.
>
> Dynamic Quality isn't visible until its percieved in some way - then in
the
> moment it's conceptualized, it forms a static intellectual pattern that
> interacts with the whole of intellect and is no longer _Dynamic_ Quality.
i know, i already said that.
> Not only is it easy to describe a static pattern, it is inevitable, since
> any description is itself a static pattern of intellect.
why is it easy to describe a static pattern? that seems a very VERY loose
statement, it would be appreciated if you could back it up with something a
little more than confidence.
> >DQ is not mysticism, it's that feeling of wonder that hits in the belly
and
> >just rocks you. it's an inbuilt appreciation for something that you did
not
> >expect did not believe could happen or for something that is beyond
> >expectation. it's not mystical, it's biological. mysticism implies a
soul,
> >that is nonsence!
>
> Whew. So much to disagree with here. DQ is a feeling? That's all?
from the point of view of a human it is. if you'd read my mails properly
you would know i do not really argue about philospophy and all it's
psuedo-granduer, instead i look from the human level. it's what i know
best. therefore, that is all dq is.
Its
> also the necessary condition for the existence of anything. Before you
are
> aware, you have to be aware of "something".
the first thing we are aware of is SELF. but since we can only PERCIEVE
ourselves, then the SELF is a static pattern ... you said above that
anything percieved is a static pattern. as soon as we become aware, it is
static. therefore it has nothing to do with dq.
>A
> train just sitting on the tracks isn't any good to anyone. The train
> moves, therefore we can conclude DQ exists, even though we can't percieve
> it.
i never said it didnt exist, i said that once percieved it is static. you
agree with me.
> I don't agree either that mysticism implies a soul. Buddha basically
gave
> a mu answer to the question of reincarnation. One definition of soul is
> the continuation of the self without a physical form. Buddhism's main
goal
> is to open the eyes of the self to the ridiculousness of the conception of
> the "self" as something apart from the rest of the cosmos. The idea of a
> "soul", then, is the very antithesis of mysticism.
if mysticism does not imply a soul, then what do the teachings and methods
of mysticism "work" on? are they some ancient way of altering the
quantum/biological/genetic (or whatever) state within our minds? what is
the point in mysticism, if there is no soul?
> >> The levels of static quality are much easier to talk about and to
> >> understand. We ARE those patterns, and so is the cosmos we live in.
> >
> >but this is down to interpretation. can you describe your world?
>
> Yes.
go on then.
> Everything I can percieve and describe is, by definition, static.
but then i percieve it differently. so to me your world (as you tell it) is
not your world (as i see it) and since my world is the only one i know, and
since your world (as you tell it) is differnt to your world (as i see it)
then your world is not your world and so you have not described it.
Rich.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST