From: Pi (pi@mideel.ath.cx)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:28:21 BST
Hi Johnny,
I am a newcomer to the forum, but I have been into Pirsig for a couple of
years. At the risk of going against the whole group, I was always under
the impression that ideas are static and reality is dynamic. I view ideas
as static intellectual patterns used to explain the dynamic reality.
Ideas can be thought of as snapshots of the flowing reality. They only
reflect the reality (to some degree) the instant they capture it. But the
snapshot is stale soon afterwards. I don't think this is a descrepency at
all.
I have not read James to know what he meant when he used the word
'reality'. Perhaps someone with a copy of James' original work can clear
this doubt.
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003, johnny moral wrote:
> Pirsig quotes James:
>
> "There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because
> the former are static and discontinuous, and the latter is dynamic and
> flowing." lila p 365
>
> Pirsig then notes that James used the SAME WORDS that he does! Hey that's
> great, but look at what James said: the reality is dynamic, and the concepts
> (ideas) are static. How could Pirsig ignore that he is using them in the
> OPPOSITE sense of what the MoQ does? As this forum is nearly unamimous in
> saying that ideas are dynamic, while the patterns that constitute the real,
> felt existence of the present are static, I am sure someone here can explain
> this discrepancy. Feel free to refer me to what you said in my last
> "heirarchies opposite" thread. (I realize that reality is quality, but I
> think the reality James is talking about here is more what we mean by the
> rocks and trees type of reality or static reality.)
>
> (And note that though I have been a defender of so-called static patterns
> and questioned the existence of DQ, I have only been arguing on terms that
> were presented to me. I have meant to be a defender of morality and
> continuous reality against discontinuous ideas that serve the Giant, not a
> defender of frozen statis to the extent that I can't accept the dynamic and
> flowing nature of reality, or the idea that things should change for the
> better. So I welcome James's description of reality as dynamic and flowing.
> And yes I relish his put-down of concepts as static. But at the same
> time, guys, don't take it hard: Defending static patterns is easy and
> rewarding. Static patterns are good. In fact, Good is a static pattern.
> Of course an idea has to be static, othewise it would be a different idea
> all the time, or just never really clear in the first place. A fleeting
> idea is useless (You should hear all the songs I've composed that I've
> forgotten). We want our ideas to be static, that's what gives them their
> value and allows them to propogate from person to person.)
>
> Johnny
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 12:33:24 BST