LS Re: Growing consensus


Martin Striz (striz@ezwv.com)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:49:58 +0100


I'm going to have to address this one:

>After less thought about SQ/DQ, I think DQ as energy, or that which
>changes and SQ as matter or that which stays the same are subtly amiss.
>I'm starting to think the split is imaginary. If there is a useful
>split-
>I think it lies in process and processed. Ie, SQ is that which is
>subjected to DQ. DQ is the process, the style or even just how things
>occur.

You may personally believe that the best two divisions of the world are
matter and energy, but please don't define them as Dynamic Quality and
static quality. Pirsig makes it very clear what the two are. Dynamic
Quality is the undefinable dynamic leading edge, it would be an
injustice to call it 'chaos,' 'energy,' 'the processor' and so forth.
It is the changes in the world and your mind takes a split second to
recognize these changes, thus it is always ahead of
analysis/categorization/definition. Static quality is the stuff that
survives from dynamic moments (quality events). It continues to exist
in a more static form.

Energy and matter, which can neither be created nor destroyed (aside
from weird stuff we see on the quantum level), are both static values.
Inorganic static values, to be exact.

Saying the best duality is a matter/energy duality is basically
materialism. It doesn't take into account cultural values and so forth.

The strength of the dynamic/static, or changing/stabilizing, split is
that each side of this pair strengthens the other one. Each is
necessary for
the other. In all other dualities, one or the other or both halves are
not necessary, contradictory, or in competition for spheres of
influence. (i.e. the materialism/idealism squabble)

Cheers,
Martin

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST