From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sun Feb 27 2005 - 18:10:20 GMT
Hi DMB,
If I have mistaken your views I apologise. Would you be happy that there is
a difference between these two views (or am I making a division where none
exists?)
View A: the static/dynamic split of "reality" is metaphysically equivalent
to the classic/romantic split, or the subject/object split; the relationship
between the static and dynamic can be pictured like the yin/yang symbol, and
the whole (DQ/SQ) is a representation of reality.
View B: the static/dynamic split is metaphysically different to the
classic/romantic split in that the dynamic is the underlying mystical
reality itself, and the static is a derivative product resulting from the
operations of that DQ in time. DQ is conceptually and morally prior to SQ,
and therefore superior to it in a way that cannot be represented by use of
the yin/yang symbol.
Until last year I had believed the MoQ to be advocating View A (with
"Quality" referring to the underlying mystical reality, then being
subdivided), but following our discussions (in MF in March 04) I came away
thinking that the MoQ in fact advocates View B. The most important point in
favour of this perspective is Pirsig's comment that in ZMM when he talked
about Quality he was in fact talking about DQ. I still remember my feeling
of surprise on reading that. View A, by the way, seems compatible with
'contradictory identity', so far as I understand it, whilst View B does not
(although I'd be interested to learn if Scott agrees with that).
But it is perfectly possible that I have misunderstood both what you were
saying and this view of the MoQ. If View A is in fact the correct view of
the MoQ I would be greatly reassured. It's pretty much what I believe to be
the case.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:29 PM
Subject: RE: MD Pure experience and the Kantian problematic
> Sam asked Anthony:
> There's been some debate here and on MF about whether DQ is 'superior' or
> 'anterior' to SQ. I had been persuaded, by DMB amongst others, that Pirsig
> sees DQ as primary, and SQ as secondary and derivative. A) do you agree
> with
> DMB on that point, and B) is that compatible with the form/formlessness
> contradictory identity which Scott is describing?
>
> dmb objects:
> You've misunderstood and mischaracterized my view, Sam. As I understand
> it,
> DQ is the primary emprical reality and sq forms in its wake, but words
> like
> "secondary" or "derivitive" strike me as too dismissive. If I ever used
> those words or gave that impression, I'd regret it.
>
> The idea that leaps to mind here is the MOQ's assertion that reality is
> undivided, that Quality is undivided, that the static/Dynamic split is an
> intellectual division. This division is a way to explain the dance between
> freedom and order. It is a picture of two opposites, between dynamic
> freedom
> and static order, that constitute a whole. All this just screams
> contradictory identity, doesn't it? And its pretty clear that the words
> "form" and "pattern" mean the same thing in this sense. The
> "undifferentiated" continuum is "formlessness". I have quoted Wilber so
> many
> times in an effort to express this idea that you're probably sick of it,
> so
> I won't do it again.
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 27 2005 - 18:13:51 GMT