Troy Becker (tbecker@gonzaga.edu)
Fri, 11 Sep 1998 13:37:27 +0100
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Ant McWatt wrote:
> There is no point discussing secondary issues (such as
> free-will and determinism) if we don't have a good grasp of
> the foundations of the MOQ. I know that to find the
> essence of DQ is difficult, maybe impossible, but I'd
> certainly like to explore it in some more depth (sooner
> rather than later).
in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, we learn how Quality is
undefinable. it is that undefinable aspect of Quality that i regard as
Dynamic Quality. in Lila, essentially, we learn about a (solid, IMO,)
proposed definition for Quality. the first Aristotlean split cut our
Quality into the static and the dynamic. everything tangible seems to be
static, while Dynamic Quality seems to be the "reason behind it all".
so Dynamic Quality seems to be Progress, or Betterment, or (brace
yourself) Good Intent or Will. oooh, that will turn some heads. well,
what i'm thinking is that Kant's "Good Will" of the Universe is Dynamic
Quality. the neat thing Pirsig revealed (one neat thing among many) is
the [Dynamic] shift in semantics--in the meanings behind what we are
thinking.
to me, the notion of Quality hits the nail more square on the head than
talking about "happiness", or "the greatest good", "morality", "justice",
"virtue", "inner peace", "reason", and so forth. Quality is all of that,
which offers a more comprehensive view when we ask "what is the point?"
detailed meaning like also resides in "Dynamic Quality". Energy, Change,
Movement are words that come to mind. so we are using language to more
closely "say what we mean".
Succintly, Dynamic Quality is progressive change, whatever that may be.
-- 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 - 16:43:46 CEST