clark (clark@netsites.net)
Wed, 11 Feb 1998 10:32:02 +0100
----------
> From: Diana McPartlin <diana@asiantravel.com>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Re: Whats wrong with the SOM.
> Date: Wednesday, February 11, 1998 7:18 AM
>
> Hi Ken and squad
>
> Ken wrote
>
> > To explain my view I will start with the contents of the static
levels.
> > These static levels precondition our mindset, our Dynamic Quality, to
> > favor certain aspects of our total field of awareness, which consists
of
> > input from our immediate surroundings plus the total content of our
minds,
> > including subconscious prickings, plus any overriding, jarring
impressions
> > which may be present. The gleanings of Dynamic Quality resulting from
these
> > urgings are immediately transferred to our consciousness, our static
> > quality, where they are subjected to the jury of our static patterns of
> > value, this new state of SPoV immediately preconditions our Dynamic
Quality
> > again to repeat the process. Our lives are a continuous circle of
> > adjustment to the gleanings of Dynamic Quality.
>
> It sounds to me like your understanding of Dynamic and static is similar
> to the understanding that I'm becoming more and more convinced of. The
> more I try to figure out what it is, the more I think that Dynamic
> Quality is just whatever seems better to us. Dynamic Quality is whatever
> is high quality and static is whatever is low quality. As you said, it's
> a circle we're all bound to. We all keep moving towards what seems
> dynamic. The Dynamic Quality acts upon our static patterns and pulls us
> forward to a higher level of understanding. And then the whole thing
> repeats.
>
> Pirsig's attempts at defining the two are fine as guidelines, but they
> shouldn't be taken too literally. For example he says that dynamic is
> unstable and static is stable. That's fine but that doesn't mean that
> everything that is unstable is more dynamic (or of a higher quality)
> than everything that is stable. You wouldn't want unstable brakes on
> your car would you.
>
> I hope I'm not sidetracking your discussion Ken, but your idea of the
> continous circle does seem to be consistent with my point of view that
> Dynamic Quality is just betterness (regardless of whether that
> betterness is stable or unstable, organized or unorganized, defined or
> undefined) and that is is equivalent to high quality, and that we all
> move towards it whether we realize it or not. "What's inevitable?" said
> the river to Krishna. "It's inevitable that you will be happy, because
> that's what you are always trying to be". (I would add to that that it's
> also inevitable that you'll never be happy, because as soon as you reach
> the higher level it will become static and you'll start looking for
> Dynamic Quality again.)
>
>
>
> Diana
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Diana,
You have stated it better than I could.
I don't have a discussion going, I am just trying to satisfy myself.
Ken
-- 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 - 16:42:47 CEST