Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:53:17 +0100
I mailed this out yesterday afternoon and it didn't come back to
me. If you did get it, here it is again:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:38:32 -0500 (EST)
From: Donald T Palmgren <lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
To: lilasqd@hkg.com
Subject: Re: LS Re: Conceptions of Dynamic Quality (was: Whats wrong
with the SOM.)
Hi Kieth,
That was most definatly an excellent explanation of DQ. You've
clearly got a grasp on the MoQ/Pirsig-speak. Good job.
I only diverge in your contrast w/ Kant and Taoism. The fourth
and
final formation of the thing in itself is the "Moral Self." It's what
I'm
aiming towards in Break neck Kant, so more on that shortly.
As far as the Tao, your correct that it doesn't emphacize value
or
morality per-se. Tao means "way" which I see as akin to "Dynamic" -- a
way
implies a movement. In my understanding of Taoism, the Tao is the way
*towards* what is good -- "towards" not "to" because you can't ever get
there. As w/ DQ you focus on the movement -- but you're not just moving
for the sake of moving; the Tao is *the* path because it is the best,
highest quality path, but it takes you, not to Quality, but towards it.
(The Taoist have no equivolent of Nirvana -- the Taoist way is a way of
life, and as such is an end to itself, valuable for it's own sake.)
Just my two cents. Two years ago I could have told you a lot
more
about Taoism in its (so far as we can derive) historic origens, but I've
emptyed the tea cup since, and that's all down in various journels and
margen notes to books on my shelves.
TTFN
Donny
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:48 CEST