Hi LilaQs all,
This post of mine was already rejected because the moderator didn't
consider that it dealt with the question of the month "How does one
obtain both static and Dynamic Quality simultaneously?"
Firstly, the question could be better worded. DQ/SQ aren't objects
sitting out there waiting to be "obtained". Rather the question is where
are SQ and DQ expressed in a given circumstance.
I am enclosing my earlier post with added annotations to spell things
out . . .
> Hi LilaQs,
>
> Lack of time forces me to keep this very brief, so apologize to all
> the posters to whom I might otherwise have referred.
>
> BODVAR
> >... A new
> > virus strain isn't exactly a new life form ...as I see it. (what do
> > you say Jonathan?).
> As resident biologist I put it like this. Seen in isolation, a virus
is
> a bit of nucleic acid with some sort of protein coat. Often very
> ordered, very static - you could maybe do a "ball and stick" molecular
> model.
> On the other hand, a virus IN A LIVING CONTEXT is very alive. It
> switches on and off processes in living cells, it multiplies, mutates,
> evolves - all very dynamic and very alive.
> In other words, it's a question of how the virus is viewed.
To put it even more explicitly both SQ and DQ are in how one regards the
virus. One can get a "more dynamic" appraisal of what the virus is by
being open to different viewpoints. There is no limit to the number of
aspects that might be considered. However, to reach a conclusion of what
a virus is, one has to restrict this, and the point where one chooses to
stop is where the considerations become too far-fetched and ridiculous.
To put it humorously, one needs to be open minded, but not so open
minded that ones brains fall out.
(That's my one line answer to this month's question)
>BO
>Between the static layers there are
> > border cases where it is hard to decide what belongs where.
> That's the playtypus problem Bo. We have trouble deciding which side
of
> the line to put the platypus, while the real problem may be with the
> lines themselves.
>
Excessive narrowmindedness can mean that one is stuck with "holding the
line" when the line should be moved.
> On to another topic: In ZAMM, Phaedrus considers explaining his Q
> concept by saying that an entity is the SUM OF IT's QUALITIES. That
> would please the logical positivists, making Q entirely objective. I
now
> see that Phaedrus had to reject this line because it was actually a
> definition only of SQ - DQ was left out.
Pirsig realized that this particular definition of Quality was only
static, though in ZAMM he didn't use that terminology. Had he stuck with
this definition of Quality, he would have remained STUCK indeed,
paralyzed with a stagnant concept of Quality which could take us
nowhere.
One last comment addressed to our moderators. How NOT to achieve true
quality is to rigidly apply censorship rules and turn this forum into a
static paralyzed meaningless apology for a newsgroup.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:49 GMT