Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:23:08 +0100
Hi Magnus and the LS
Magnus Berg wrote:
> A few comments about the principles.
>
> > 3. Dynamic Quality and static quality.
> > The best way to divide Quality is into patterns of Dynamic and static
> > value or experience. Dynamic Quality is pure unfiltered experience.
> > Static quality is stable distinguishable experience. Dynamic Quality
> > creates the world; static quality preserves it. Dynamic Quality is more
> > pleasing than static quality. Dynamic Quality is more moral than static
> > quality.
>
> You can't compare DQ and SQ, it's like comparing green-ness and mass.
Greenness is a type of value, mass is a type of value, Dynamic Quality
is a type of value, static quality is a type of value. Different types,
maybe but there is still a common denominator there and thus a basis for
comparison.
Why not cut the
> principle after "Dynamic Quality creates the world; static quality
> preserves it."? I like that.
Because rather than it not being possible to compare DQ and SQ there are
in fact a _huge_ number of ways to compare them. In his explanation of
the two concepts in chapter nine Prisig says, amongst other things, that
DQ is new, SQ is old;
DQ is simple, SQ is complex;
DQ contains no patterns of fixed rewards and punishments, static
quality's Good is conformity to an established patterns of fixed values
and values objects;
DQ comes as a surprise, static quality is what you'd normally expect.
There are lots more comparisions in that chapter and throughout the rest
of Lila. The problem faced when trying to write a principle of Dynamic
and static quality isn't that we can't compare it's that there are too
many ways to compare! So, which comparisons to choose? I've spent a
great deal of time on this question, which I think is a lot harder than
the Quality Principle. Eventually I reduced it to four essential things
that must be said to explain the difference between the two.
Dynamic Quality is pure unfiltered experience. Static quality is stable
distinguishable experience.
-- What I'm trying to get at is the mystic reality of dynamic quality,
the idea that DQ is a purer type of experience. This explains the very
nature of DQ and SQ aside from what they are for.
Dynamic Quality creates the world; static quality preserves it.
-- This explains the mechanics of the whole thing, the process of
evolution.
Dynamic Quality is more pleasing than static quality.
-- I seem to recall that there's a discussion of whether it is possible
to talk about value without mentioning its aesthetic nature in the
Handbook to ZMM but I don't have a copy of it here. Anyway, I think
aesthetics are fundamental. The MoQ is based first on empirical
observation and this is the way we empirically tell the difference
between DQ and SQ.
Dynaic Quality is more moral than static quality.
-- So, we've had the nature of DQ/SQ, the mechanics, the empirical
evidence, and this last one gives meaning to it all.
> Besides, to say that DQ is more moral than SQ is to define an aspect
> of DQ, and we can't have that.
Prisig mentions that DQ is more moral than SQ several times in Lila.
It's his fifth "Code of Quality": Dynamic Quality is more moral than
static.
We can define many aspects of DQ. We just can't give a precise
definition of the whole thing.
> > 9. Evolution.
> > To create ever higher levels of awareness, Dynamic Quality strives for
> > freedom from all static patterns. Freedom is the highest Good in the
> > Metaphysics of Quality. Life is migration of static patterns of quality
> > toward Dynamic Quality.
>
> The same goes for freedom. Total freedom equals chaos.
Before principle 9, there was principle 8...
8. Dependency
When a higher level attempts to assert its moral dominance over a lower
level, it must be careful that it does not endanger the stability of the
lower level on which it ultimately depends on for survival.
That should be changed to include the point that Dynamic Quality also
depends on static quality.
As Pirsig says in chap 24
"The Dynamic-static code says what's good in life isn't defined by
society or intellect or biology. What's good is freedom from domination
by any static pattern, but that freedom doesn't have to be obtained by
the destruction of the patterns themselves."
Let's see
8. Dependency
When a higher quality attempts to assert its moral dominance over a
lower quality, it must be careful that it does not endanger the
stability of the lower quality on which it ultimately depends on for
survival.
yup, that's better:-)
Diana
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST