LS Re: reformation of dynamic/static split


Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Sun, 7 Jun 1998 17:05:25 +0100


Hi, Martin and Squad!

Good points, Martin, and logical. There's one part at which I think I
disagree, and it might be your main conclusion. Let me try to chew on
it a little. You said,

     "Perhaps I simply don't understand Pirsig that well, but if the
     difference between Dynamic Quality and static quality is one of
     perception and invention, then there doesn't exist a relationship
of
     "leading along."

This difference that you describe is a good way to start seeing Dynamic
and Static. In the world of ideas and words, this might be pretty
accurate. Intellectual patterns (at least at this point in history) all
involve human-type perception. And in this context, the Dynamic is the
spark of invention. Intellect can only see intellect. "Invention"
describes an intellectual pattern that has been mediated by Dynamic
Quality. But "invention" is NOT Dynamic Quality. It's the result.
This probably seems too human-centered, and I believe that was the
source of your dissatisfaction. DQ shouldn't be that petty.

It's not. But, that's where the intellectual level exists, in human
interactions. Let me follow this on a bit.

The social level consists of different interactions. A LOT of those
interactions would also be able to be categorized in your description of
static/dynamic as reactions of perception and invention. But they are a
subset of social interactions. The social level works in
non-intellectual ways, and can't be catogirized into perception and
invention. It's a different kind of pattern matching (social pattern /
not social pattern). It involves imitation, recognition of rank, and a
need to drop into biological mechanisms whenever its mechanisms are
inadequate to resolve the pecking order. Many of its interactions are
not recognized by intellect at all. My point would be that in this
particular level's functions, which can be seen by an analogy to
perception and invention, actually include many interactions of which
the conscious intellect knows nothing, and which are yet to be
"discovered" into membership in intellectual patterns as well.

At the biological level, the dynamic/static split, I believe, shows up
in reproduction, mobility, continuation of life, all of which involve
the dance between stability and movement. There is perception and
invention here, too, but it is not usually intellectual perception, and
invention by social or intellectual mediation is not perceived
(biologically) as any different from invention by DQ mediation. There
are MORE instances of social and intellectual mediation than DQ, but
that's an intellectual construct and has no "meaning" in the biological
world, but it affects it nonetheless.

Somebody once attempted to describe chaos theory to me. (I have social
clues that tell me he really knew what he was talking about.) I never
really got the concept, but I remember as part of it he was making a lot
of dots on the board. He was trying to make the point that all those
dots seemed random, and as far as "causation", as far as identifying a
"reason" for some of the dots to be attracted to certain areas, there
was no reason, no purposeful thing leading them to be in certain areas.
BUT, he said, there were, nevertheless, certain areas in which the dots
conglomerated. I think he said the conglomeration was real, whether we
had explanations or not.

I have imagined that this metaphor was a glimpse into the non-patterned
inorganic world, a place in which the basic element of Dynamic Quality,
unobstructed by our understanding of perception and invention, is in
action.

Does this help put the static/dynamic split into a more universal
context?

Maggie

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST