Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:45:57 +0100
Magnus Berg wrote:
> >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.
Not a fifth level, a fifth code. Look it up.
The idea that DQ is more moral is qualified by the principle that says
that a higher quality cannot destroy a lower quality because it is
dependent on it. I did already suggest revising the Dependency principle
to include Dynamic-static dependency. But that comes way down the list
so the relationship isn't clear. Perhaps the dependent relationship
between DQ and SQ needs to be added to the principle. I hate to make it
even longer but ...
Dynamic Quality and static quality
There are many ways to divide Quality, but the best way is into patterns
of Dynamic and static value or experience. Dynamic Quality is pure
unfiltered experience; static quality is stable distinguishable
experience. Dynamic Quality is more compelling than static quality.
Dynamic Quality is more moral than static quality. Dynamic Quality
creates the world; static quality preserves it. Neither static nor
Dynamic Quality can survive without the other.
Diana
-- 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