Re: LS static & Dynamic

From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Date: Sun May 02 1999 - 21:47:24 BST


ROGER ADDS SOME POINTS AND ASKS
A FEW QUESTIONS TO DAVID AND JOHN

Excellent posts Horse, David B. and John. Lots of new conceptual waves for
us to ride. Below are some comments or questions for the last two (I have
nothing to add to yours Horse.)

[David] All of phenomenal reality is composed of static Quality. Any "thing"
in the universe that can be measured, defined or concieved IS static
Quality. All of the known and knowable universe is made of static
Quality.

[Rog]I agree with your first three points. I would like to know more about
the relationship of sq in terms of DQ, but you address this toward the end.

[David] Dynamic Quality is ultimately undefinable, beyond words and concepts.
DQ is the mystical reality. It is the ground of all being. It is the
source of all "things". It is the living force behind all evolution and
also the goal of that evolution.

[Rog] I agree with what you are saying, but I took slightly more "empirical"
course (different, but not necessarily better). Since the MOQ subscribes to
radical empiricism, I divided the terms out more along the common issue of
experience. DQ is undivided and preconceptual, while sq is divided and
conceptualized experience. We already had the solipsism issue clarified, and
I still have your GET OUT OF JAIL FREE card, but I bet you it comes up again
real soon! The thing I like about experience is that even though you can't
define experience, people can grasp the essence of it. I have been heavily
influenced here by the writings of Ant (i think he still has a paper in the
forum). Thoughts?

[David] Cosmologically speaking, the MOQ says the evolution of the universe
is the movement of all static patterns toward DQ.

[Rog]If I wanted to "go to DQ", which direction should I head? Should I pack
a sweater? I am being silly, but I share John's troubles with this term. If
patterns are derived from DQ, how can they go to DQ? Can a pattern refuse to
go to DQ? I guess to some extent one can refuse, because Pirsig suggests we
pursue it. Help me out here if you can. See also my more rational, but less
questioning comments below to John.

[David] AN INFINITE SERIES of
Quality events propells growth and evolution of all static patterns. The
moral codes are essentially designed to protect this evolution. The
codes dictate that higher level patterns ought to win in any conflict
and that Dynamic is always better that static.

[Rog] Who "designed" em? I would like to shake her hand. Again I am being
facetious, but I would like to know more about why and how this design
emerged. Are the codes based on assumptions, or observations?

[David] Finally, I think its important to remember that all these
distinctions and definitions are just intellectual models of reality and
the map should not be mistaken for the road. Ultimately all is Quality.
SQ and DQ are just two types of the same thing. Its a little like ice
floating in water. Its all just H2O. I like to think of DQ as infinite
potential and each and every SQ pattern that ever was or will be as a
manifestation of some of that potential. DQ is un-patterned,
un-different-iated, un-manifested and infinite whereas SQ is a finite,
patterned, differentiated, manifested aspect of eternity. SQ
precipitates out of DQ. SQ patterns are particularized inflections of
DQ. I'm sure there are even more ways to say it, but I can't think of
any right now.

[Rog] I really like the way you explained it here. DQ is the name we have
given to the true Quality, and sq is the divided illusion of quality. And
now to John's:

[John] Pirsig attempts a global statement of theory when he says "All life is
a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." I happen
to think this is a most unfortunate phrasing. The word "toward" implies a
teleology, that there is a purpose in nature, which he explicitly rejects a
few pages later. And just how do static patterns "migrate"? They are static.
The word "All" is either patently false or imposes a perhaps unintended
restriction upon the meaning of the word life. All very grand and all very
messy.

[Rog] I share your troubles with this terminology. I interpret him as
meaning that it evolves toward the unpatterned source of quality. He mentions
that the Brujo was the first person of his tribe to see and follow this DQ.
This fresh , new quality was later established as the new static patterns of
culture. Since this movement is toward unpatterned and undefinable quality,
it can't really be considered teleological though can it? By the way, static
quality is not necessarily static. I prefer the term "patterned."

[John]My rewording of his theory would go something like this. 'Life evolves
through the impact of dynamic quality upon patterns of static quality.' This
places the emphasis upon the dynamic event, with consequences for the static
patterns. It leaves open the possibility that "life is heading away from
mechanistic patterns", which seems to me a stimulating but unprovable
assumption. It picks up on Whitehead's rather difficult concepts that all
nature consists of events rather than matter or energy. It picks up on the
mystic understanding of intelligence as something encountered in experience,
as develped by Krishnamurti and the physicist David Bohm. And it puts dynamic
quality before static patterns, which in my understanding is the way it is.

[Rog] I guess I see sq as derived from DQ. Therefore, it is the patterns
derived from DQ that changes. I did a little graphic below to illustrate this
relationship.

inorganic experience->->Biol. ->->Social->->Intellectual Exp

inorganic pattern->->->biol.l->->social->->->intellectual pattern

These are parallel, like railroad tracks. The true track is undivided
experience or DQ (the top track above), but the track that we define and
divide and can conceive is the bottom sq track.

As the experience evolves, the patterns of experience evolve too. The
evolution of life is toward new fresh undefined experience. These experiences
are then abstracted out into a subjective living being and an objective
surrounding world. But the true aesthetic continuum is undefinable and
indivisible (with liberty and justice for all).

Does this model work for anyone?

Surfs Up!
Roger

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



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:43 GMT