Brett Wood (bwood@students.uiuc.edu)
Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:15:08 +0100
I'll offer the following analogy:
dynamic : static :: revolution : evolution
The typical negative connotations of the word "static" don't really
apply here. Static quality is a form of change and development just as
much as dynamic quality. The difference is that static quality is more
gradual and more stable. Static quality, through occurences of
"static-latching", as Pirsig calls it, establishes a baseline, a solid
foundation on which quality depends.
Dynamic quality provides the impetus for sudden and diverse changes and
development. It has no regard for the patterns of the past, and strikes
out in new and unexpected directions. It is the leading edge after
which static quality dutifully follows.
Here's another analogy: Imagine a pair of mountain climbers on their
way up a treacherous peak. Let's call them Dave and Suzie Q. Dave
leads the way, searching for any sort of handhold or foothold he can
find to get a little higher. Suzie follows, securing the ropes and
latching them to the spots which Dave has found. Suzie depends on Dave
to continue finding a safe path up the mountain, while Dave depends on
Suzie to secure the line so they'll be safe if he happens to slip.
Without DQ, SQ would stagnate and have nowhere to go. Without SQ, DQ
would have no firm starting point from which to begin. Together, they
keep quality alive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:20 CEST