Elephant - ALL descriptions are static by definition, so I guess I agree. In
fact, that was my point. I guess I'm unclear about what you're responding
to. Did I lead you to believe I was looking for a dynamic description? I'm
not, I'm looking for the 'soul', the continuate 'experiencer' that is
separate from the experience but still dynamic. I don't see it.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of elephant
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MD Consciousness/Awareness/the property market in London
What kind of description of the dynamic is available, Marty, other than the
Static kind?
That's what static is - the described: that which has or is given a *state*,
or *nature* or *identity*.
That's *why* the dynamic is so difficult to describe. It is *antithetical*
to description (and not just *extremely difficult* to decribe).
A dynamic description of the dynamic is a curious contradiction (this is
unaffected by the fact that some static descriptions strike us as more
dynamic than others: as descriptions they are static, as actions they have
more or less quality).
A poem might be said to be more dynamic, in that it has greater life in the
imagination, less prosaic staticity. But in this case what the poem gains
in dynamism it loses in description. It does not give a *state* or a
*nature*. It is a provocation.
This is all very poorly expressed. But do you see what I am thinking,
atleast?
Elephant
> From: "Marty Jorgensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 09:20:10 -0700
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: MD Consciousness/Awareness/the property market in London
>
> Hi Elephant - I enjoyed your latest post and will try to clarify further.
> As you noted, language and grammar usage seem to be formidable obstacles.
>
> I wrote:
> Who, or what, HAS this soul?
>
> You replied:
> Your talk of possession ("HAS") makes no sense. For something to be
> possessed there
> would have to be a distinction between the possessor and the possessed,
> which is precisely what there cannot be here (which is after all your
> point).
>
> Me again: Yes, you're right -'has' is the wrong word. I guess it would
be
> that souls simply exist. But then, we still have the problem of
> differentiating souls from dynamic quality, breaking reality into parts.
We
> all know where that leads.
>
> I previously wrote:
>> In the DQ, as Iread it, there is DQ as the ultimate, only reality -
> everything else is a
>> pattern, static or dynamic, of Quality. Are you now saying that there
are
>> TWO things that comprise reality, Quality and souls? In order for there
> to
>> be distinct individuals, outside or beyond static/dynamic patterns, there
>> must be distinct stuff other than Quality. This seems to go against
>> Pirsig's whole point.
>
> You responded:
> Two things, not one? Yes, purely from a grammatical point of
> view, it does seem to me that you can't have experience without an
> experiencer. But what the word 'experiencer' denotes in practice, and
> whether there can be said to be a *real* distinction between the
experiencer
> and the experienced (as opposed to a grammatical one) is another matter.
> Don't forget that this observation about the gap between the grammar and
the
> real situation cuts both ways: I mean that if you want to stick with the
> "there is only Quality" answer you have to reinterpret the relevant
concept
> of 'experience' in such a way as also to embrace 'experiencer'.
>
> Are you with me?
>
> Me: Yes, I'm with you on this one. This is tricky, but follow me here.
> Yes, 'experience' necessitates an 'experiencer', but not a 'self' or a
> 'soul'. This all goes back to the dynamic/static quality split. When
> something occurs and is experienced, at that moment there is no difference
> between the experience and the experiencer - there is only the experience,
> as dynamic quality. When I attempt to REPORT the experience, to think,
> write or talk about it, I have now retreated to a static view,an'I
> experience' view. 'Experience and 'Experiencer' are only distinct in the
> static world.
> -----
> You continued:
>
> Up to a point, this sort of discussion can become quite intractable:
simply
> a matter of how you choose to put it, which grammatical form you prefer
for
> the underlying reality. Either rework the meaning of 'experience' (which
is
> fine so long as you own up to it), or accept that the experience and the
> experiencer are distinct. To my taste, though, and following Plato, it
> seems that so long as you continue to talk of 'experience' with any
meaning
> you have to remember the distinct 'experiencer', that so long as you talk
of
> 'The Good' you have to remember 'Eros', that so long as you talk of the
> magnetic you have to speak of the magnetism. More to the point, so long
as
> you talk of 'Quality' you have to remember 'Taste', or, if you prefer
> something for the prelinguistic situation, 'Intuition'.
>
> Me Again:
> Yes, you are correct, but only in the static description of the dynamic,
not
> in the ultimate DQ, in my opinion.
>
>
> I previously wrote:
>
> MARTY:
>> First of all, I don't see enlightenment and compassion as the same
>> thing; I see it as enlightenment LEADING TO compassion, for once you see
>> reality as it is, compassion is the only thing that makes sense.
>
> And you replied:
> I agree, of course, but there is also a sense in which it isn't *really*
> enlightenment until it actually *has* lead to compassion. And that's a
> theme in Jamesian pragmatist thought as well: beleifs are action guiding
or
> they aren't beleifs. We shouldn't pay attention to what Descartes *says*
he
> beleives or doubts, we should pay attention to what he actually does. The
> 'mal genie' "doubt" was just self indulgent pretence. I think this makes
> the connection between compassion and enlightement slightly stronger than
> the 'leading to' account. And that chimes with some remembered C of E
> thinking: it matters not what you *say* about the Love or God, it matters
> whay you *do*. Or Eckhart, the theologian that Pirsig refers to -
something
> to the effect of 'do not yelp about god'. What matters is what you *do*
> (though thoughts and words are actions too, they are certainly not the
whole
> of action, nor in all situations the most important).
>
> I respond:
> I'm with you 100% on this one.
>
> To speak clearly is to be understood
> To act clearly is to be.
>
>
> marty j
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
