Re: LS March 1999 Program Topic

From: diana@hongkong.com
Date: Tue Feb 23 1999 - 12:13:18 GMT


Keith and squad

Keith wrote:
>"With the Metaphysics of Quality, Pirsig proposes a 'Copernican Revolution'
>in our understanding of reality, placing undefined value at the center and
>dividing it into static and Dynamic Quality. How are those of us still
>mired in a subject-object view of the world to wrap our minds around this
>transformation? Is this static-dynamic split merely an epistemic
>convenience that we make arbitrarily or is it an ontological reality,
>transcending our thoughts and intellectual description of it?"

On first glance I think there are two ways that a question like that could
go. One is into an exploration of dynamic and static (which would include
whether they are "true" or not). The other is into a many truths discussion
which could conceivably leave out any investigation of dynamic and static
per se.

I'm not sure what you intend but I would like to begin by identifying what
Pirsig meant by the dynamic-static split because I'm frequently aghast at
the way people use the terms with only the most superficial reference to
what Pirsig wrote. My question would be something like: "What did Pirsig
mean by the terms dynamic and static quality, what is the relationship
between them, and did he posit them as the actual nature of reality or just
a more useful interpretation of reality than the subject-object split?"

Diana

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:35 GMT