LS Re: Principles - Update


Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 05:39:16 +0100


Hi Diana and Squad

Oops, got a little behind there, remember this?

>> You can't compare DQ and SQ, it's like comparing green-ness and mass.
>
>Greenness is a type of value, mass is a type of value, Dynamic Quality
>is a type of value, static quality is a type of value. Different types,
>maybe but there is still a common denominator there and thus a basis for
>comparison.

I usually picture DQ as the dynamic aspect of every Quality Event.
It fits nicely with "pre-intellectual" and "cutting edge". Granted, this
is a kind of definition but it lets DQ pervade all of reality so it
doesn't
inhibit DQ in any way.
>
>
>Dynamic Quality is pure unfiltered experience. Static quality is stable
>distinguishable experience.
>-- What I'm trying to get at is the mystic reality of dynamic quality,
>the idea that DQ is a purer type of experience. This explains the very
>nature of DQ and SQ aside from what they are for.

Ok.

>Dynamic Quality creates the world; static quality preserves it.
>-- This explains the mechanics of the whole thing, the process of
>evolution.

100%!

>Dynamic Quality is more pleasing than static quality.
>-- I seem to recall that there's a discussion of whether it is possible
>to talk about value without mentioning its aesthetic nature in the
>Handbook to ZMM but I don't have a copy of it here. Anyway, I think
>aesthetics are fundamental. The MoQ is based first on empirical
>observation and this is the way we empirically tell the difference
>between DQ and SQ.
>
>Dynaic Quality is more moral than static quality.
>-- So, we've had the nature of DQ/SQ, the mechanics, the empirical
>evidence, and this last one gives meaning to it all.

But DQ is *also* less moral than SQ.
>
>Prisig mentions that DQ is more moral than SQ several times in Lila.
>It's his fifth "Code of Quality": Dynamic Quality is more moral than
>static.

But the split between DQ and SQ is before the split of SQ into the
levels. DQ is not a fifth level. I agree that it is immoral to inhibit
dynamic change, but that doesn't make every dynamic change good.

Perhaps this makes DQ sound too much like "pure chance", but
in combination with SQ it isn't.

DQ is very much like freedom of speech on this. "I don't agree
with what you say but I would die to protect your right to say it."
is the usual phrase connected to it and is very analogous to the
situation of DQ.

What I lack in the principle is that DQ isn't always good. War,
cancer, lost love are all results of DQ.

        Magnus
>

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST