Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:55:16 +0100
Sat, 21 Feb 1998 22:18:41 -0600
Keith A. Gillette wrote:
> So what you can *say* about Dynamic Quality is really very limited, since
> it is, by "definition" that which cannot be expressed intellectually, that
> which is left out of our models of the world. It is reality in its
> totality, not reality as we conceptualize it. To my thinking, the notion of
> Dynamic Quality is an epistemological distinction--an assertion about the
> limits of intellectual understanding. Perhaps it is also the same as "Die
> Ding an sich"--the "thing in itself" in Kant's terminology.
Keith.
What you have written up to the last line of this paragraph is just
great, and this is no major criticism I just swoop down when
parallels are drawn between Kant and Pirsig. K was the epitome
of the subject/object paradigm and brought it to its ultimate
refinement, so that its inherent weakness/absurdity was revealed. His
"Ding an sich" concept bears no resemblance to the Dynamic Quality
- as I see it. It was the ephemeral objective reality that was left
when all subjective qualities were removed, while DQ is the reality
before any Static patterns are formed.
You do in fact go on to say so much in the following paragaphs. For
instance:
> ...... One way in
> which Pirsig's Dynamic Quality *differs* from "Die Ding an sich" and the
> Tao is that it, as the name suggests, is *quality*, value, goodness, that
> is, morality. Pirsig arrives at this conclusion during his famous "between
> the horns" response to the dilemma of whether quality is subjective or
> objective, as described in chapter 19 of *ZMM*. I believe this is an
> ontological assertion--a statement about the nature of reality itself.
Exactly!
> Well, I hope I haven't confused the issue any more by engaging in
> this "degenerate" (chapter 5, *Lila*) activity of trying to box in
> Dynamic Quality epistemologically and ontologically. I wrote this
> post primarily for my own understanding, after reading Diana's
> statement of her conception of Dynamic Quality and really being
> challenged by coming up with a personally satisfying understanding
> of it (which I have yet to do). Thanks to all who participate in
> this forum--the reading and thinking I've done since joining has
> been very rewarding ...
No confusion at all. During the short life of TLS we have
arrived at certain conclusions not explicitly mentioned by Pirsig,
but still natural MOQ fallouts. For example: One discussion thread
started by asking what value level this thing and that thing belongs
to. A chair is obviously made of Inorganic matter, but formed
as a throne it is for showing off Social status. It threatened to
become absurd, but we finally agreed that from each value level
point of view everything in the world is own high or low value. When
we focus in Biology everything is good or bad for our bodily
cravings. When on the Social plane everything is pro or con the cause
we identify with, and finally when on the high Intellectual perch
everything is well or not so well-formulated ideas. We, through this
mailing list, definitely operate from Intellect So feel free to work
out better ideas, formulations and definitions, you have the
qualities to become a true MOQ scholar. Also feel free to criticize
my bombastic assertions.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST