LS Re: Explain the Dynamic-Static split


Theo Schramm (theoschramm@hotmail.com)
Tue, 16 Jun 1998 04:46:17 +0100


Greetings,

KEN:
"Magnus and Donny,
  One of the questions that I would like to have an answer to is
whether Dynamic Quality began in time or preceded time. If it preceded
time then it is the originator of the universe
and could be considered God.
  If it came after the Big Bang then it is within time. Time is one of
the dimensions of the universe."

There is a third option. Dynamic Quality as I see it began WITH time and
works in the context of time. I'm not sure that anything
can precede time, as precedence involves an appeal to time and so the
question contains within itself a contradiction.
I would suggest that the Big Bang was the first Quality event and the
birth of 'everything'. To elaborate a bit further, dynamic Quality might
be viewed as requiring time in order to be dynamic (the word suggests
change, or at least potential to change) and static Quality viewed as
being a-temporal in the sense that static implies non-changing and
therefore non-dependence upon time, but the fuzziness of the boundary
between the two and their relationship to each other would seem to
require time to be present as a fundamental aspect of the 'stage' we
call the universe. This does not necessitate time preceding Quality but
merely suggests a contingent relationship. This begs the question of
whether there is Quality within a singularity - any ideas?

Jonathan. You are right in your comments about distortion. My point
remains despite my poor presentation as I'm sure you agree. I also agree
that finding the best language is a difficult task, but of course it is
an essential task and it must be done.

JONATHAN:
"Thanks for the invitation. I'm going to change the last word of your
previous sentence so that it now reads:-
"Q always requires an observer and an observed for its *definition*".
Pirsig himself saw this - which is why he was so reluctant to define or
properly describe Q. I think it becomes a whole lot less problematic if
one stresses that the division of the system into observer vs. observed
(SO) is context dependent, not absolute. I see Pirsig's 4 levels as 4 SO
contexts. The whole problem (IMO) with classical SOM is the underlying
assumption of a single context."

I can see that I have mis-interpreted you to some extent. Your changing
of one word shows my mistake. However I still am not clear upon why, for
example, the inorganic level is a 'SO context' I understand why the
intellectual level can be seen as such (thanks to BO) but here you lose
me. Care to elaborate?

Theo

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

 



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