LS Re: Explain the Static Dynamic split


. (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 2 Jul 1998 18:47:39 +0100


Hi Jonathan and LS:

Jonathan set the stage:

> Platt wrote:
> >Bo and Diana have come up with the best explanation of the DQ/SQ split
> >yet. Their proposal reads:
> >
> >The DQ/SQ split is CHANGE FOR THE BETTER versus PERMANENCE.

Then Jonathan replied:

> This idea went unchallenged for a few days, but I must now take issue
> with it. First, for the sake of precision, Diana suggested that DQ
> itself (not the split) was change for the better. I see two problems
> with this:-
> 1. To take Pirsig's example, is the experience of sitting on a hot stove
> an experience for the better? What about an earthquake?
> If DQ is *reality*, it can't exclude any experience.

SQ is also *reality* and experience. The hot stove example is SQ is
action: the biological pain-pleasure pattern, predictable and
reproducible. Earthquakes occur as the result of static geological
patterns, not always predictable but becoming more so.

Jonathan continued:
 
> 2. We need a working definition of better.

Pirsig's working definition of *better* is that which leads to greater
versatility and freedom. I'll buy that.

> Diana wrote:
> >The only way you can judge an event is by experiencing it, and better
> >experiences have an aesthetic quality to them. ...[snip]
> >You might be able to offer criteria for having these values.
> >But then what are the criteria for the criteria for the values?
> >And criteria for the criteria for the criteria for the values?
> >Eventually it all comes down to better.
>
> A possible answer is that everything that happens is for the better, but
> that is tautological, and of no real use.
 
Diana is correct in asserting that better experiences have an aesthetic
quality to them. It's my belief that we're born with a sense of quality
along with such senses as sight, smell, balance, etc. These senses are
impossible to know directly via intellectual patterns. They are simply
felt.

I admire Pirsig for many things, but none more so than legitimizing
feelings and bringing them back to philosophy.

Platt

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST