Dear Elephant,
Great Post! You expressed it beautifully. I especially liked the poetry
analogy!!
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: elephant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:02 PM
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
