From: MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Thu Feb 26 2004 - 21:01:22 GMT
Charles,
It has been my contention for some time that we can't tell the difference between DQ and degeneracy in any definite way at the time of its occurence. To try and be any more specific then "its [whatever "it" is] better" is to define and put limits on DQ.
The way the indeterminancy of Dynamic Quality plays out is that, when it happens, you have a vague, though perhaps definite, feeling that this is better than what was before. You cannot _justify_ it to yourself, let alone anyone else, at that point because the entire point of DQ is that it breaks with the past into a new direction. It is only as time passes, as the static patterns follow in its wake, that you can justify your earliest sense of "betterness." It is only after time has passed that you can gain some measure of assurance that what you sensed as betterness was really better, and not degenerate. This assurance is gained by the act of justifying it to others (and/or yourself, depending on the thing you are justifying). If, after the march of history, the betterness is found to be justified, then it was DQ. If not, then not. As Pirsig says, the test of a static pattern is whether it is better than those around it and the justificatory process is the only way w
e have of testing anything.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 26 2004 - 21:11:43 GMT