From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Dec 26 2003 - 10:37:51 GMT
Steve and Wim.
20 Dec. Steve said:
> The statement 'static patterns "migrating towards DQ' sounds to me like
> static patterns become closer and closer to being DQ which makes no sense to
> me, since I think of the dynamic/static quality distinction as un-patterned
> (undefined)/patterned (definable) experience.
This caught my attention because I remember that Anthony
McWatt raised this "migration from DQ to DQ" issue in a letter to
Pirsig and that he got an answer. This I don't remember, but Ant
may have it.
IMO the migration is to be understood this way. Inside each level
the development is from simplicity towards complexity - from
stability towards instability. The simplest organisms are most
stable, from then on it grew towards instability, yet these complex
instable (prone to illness, easily wounded) humans were needed for
the social development. Likewise, when the social level was
established its tribe pattern was (still is) the most stable one, while
the immensely complex "state" is more easily toppled, yet
necessary for the intellectual development.
> I can see no middle ground
> for patterns to be more or less "patterned" though your descriptions of
> patterns in terms of stability and versatility make sense to me (assuming I
> have it right above.)
More or less patterned in the simple/complex sense is feasible
..no? Wim's stability/versatility fits the scheme.
IMO
Bo
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 : Fri Dec 26 2003 - 09:39:09 GMT