Re: LS static & Dynamic

From: David L Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Date: Tue May 04 1999 - 20:22:19 BST


S&D Squad

*With reference to the examples given in LILA, explain dynamic and static
quality and the relationship between them.*

[John]
> I don't want to "explain" dynamic and static - Pirsig did that.
> Critique, yes. Debate, yes. Challenge, fine. But explain ... words fail me.

[Dave]
Agreed, compare and contrast Pirsig to Pirsig is an exercise of semantics and
snips. The following are examples from William Jamesí Pragmatism (1907) that
might be instructive in examining the issue. [Bracketed items from MoQ added]

ìWhat difference would it practically make to anyone if this notion of [the
Metaphysics of Quality] were true?î If no practical difference whatever can be
traced, the the alternative means practically the same thing, and all dispute
is idle.î

ìThe process here is always the same. The individual has a stock of old
opinions [static patterns of value] already, but he meets [Dynamic Quality
though] a new experience [quality event] that puts them to strain....The
result is an inward trouble to which his mind till then has been a stranger,
and from which he seeks to escape by modifying his previous mass of opinions
[static patterns of value]. He saves as much as he can [of those static
patterns of value], for in this matter of belief we are all extreme
conservatives.î

ì[When] This new idea [Dynamic quality] is adopted as the true one. It
preserves the older stock of truths [static patterns of value] with a minimun
of modification, stretching them just enought to make the admit the novelty
[Dynamic Quality], but conceiving that in ways as familiar as the case leaves
possible.î[latching strategy?]

Letís start with the first four ìstock of old opinionsî about quality from the
1988 Edition Websterís Dictionary of American English.

1. any of the features that make something what it is: characteristic element; attribute
2. basic nature; character; kind
3. the degree of excellance which a thing possesses
4. excellence; superiority

What changes would the MoQ make to these definitions and what practical
difference might they make? While much of the dialog in LS, indeed common
usage of quality, focuses on 3 and 4 consider for the moment 1 & 2.

I proposes that the MoQ would change only one word in the first
definition.(minimum of modification)
1. any of the VALUES that make something what it is: characteristic element; attribute.

What practical difference might this make?

If one were to use the fifth definition of value, from the same source, we get:

1. any of the values (according to which it is thought of as being more of
less desirable, useful, estimable, important) that make something what it is;...

With this change we get some sense that the ìdegree of excellenceî from 4 or 5
moved has into the primary definition. We introduce quality as an intellectual
concept, a thought.and it appears sufficiently broad to encompass static and
dynamic quality. Also has the practical ring of "truth as a species good"

If we use the seventh:

1. any of the values, (social principles, goals, or standards, held or
accepted by an individual, class, society, etc) that make something what it is;...
If the MoQ was adopted: Static Quality defined.

to be continued

Dave Thomas

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



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