LS Re: Dynamic vs Static split


diana@asiantravel.com
Sat, 25 Jul 1998 09:55:42 +0100


Hi Platt and squad

Platt Holden wrote:

> The problem here is the same as with some other descriptions that have
> been proposed on the LS: there's no reference to morals or values.
> Unless we can work that in somehow, I think we miss the boat. For me the
> distinction between DQ and SQ is the distinction between the values of
> freedom and order.

Yes we definitely miss the boat, as you put it, if we ignore morals.

And, I'm glad you also brought up the direct experience of dynamic
quality which is another thing that has been missing from most
descriptions.

> Pirsig, on the other hand, brings
> Spirit into everyday life, showing how it is implicit in choice and
> action, the stuff of life itself. To see Spirit (Quality) we need not
> become Buddhists. All we have to do is look and it's there. In fact, we
> are it.

With regard to Ken Wilber and Pirsig, I don't doubt that Wilber's ideas
are consistent with Pirsig's dynamic and static as are other writers,
because they aren't exactly original concepts. Pirsig says himself that
DQ is associated with Eastern mysticism: the flowing changing universe.
>From that it's easy enough to see that SQ is what Hindus call illusion
(maya) and what Westerners call reality, ie things we have names for. We
can split hairs over whether freedom/order change/permenance etc are the
best abstractions of this, but essentially we're talking about the same
thing and people have been making this distinction for thousands of
years.

What Pirsig adds to this is a moral structure, namely that DQ is the
highest moral value. The Hinudus say this too, but unlike the Hindus, he
insists that SQ is moral too and defines four levels of it.

And, as you pointed out, he shows how DQ is a part of everyday life
which is something that both the Hindus and the Western scientific
realityists miss. One of his key examples of DQ is listening to a song
on a radio. (Pirsig had 11 years to think about which examples he would
use to illustrate DQ and SQ, we really ought to take them more
seriously!) This experience, he says, is the same transcendant reality
that the mystics are always going on about. He demystifies mysticism, if
you like.

Listening to the song is dynamic because you like it. It's as simple as
that. This is the aesthetic nature of DQ -- what American Indians
term "manito": manifestations of skill, fortune, blessing, luck or any
wondrous occurrence.

I think the trouble is that these just aren't very skientific sounding
explanations. Aesthetics and morals are not "real" in the SOM and that's
why we have an aversion to building a theory around them. Yet without
them Pirsig is just one more Western interpreter of Eastern philosophy
with nothing particularly new of his own to say.

Diana

--
homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:29 CEST