Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Mon, 8 Jun 1998 17:53:43 +0100
Hi squad
A few days ago, Brett wrote:
> 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.
And I thought that was pretty good. The only thing I would add is that
when you put it like this it sounds like Dave and Suze are a couple of
happy hikers helping each other out. But actually, even though they need
each other, they can't stand each other and spend the whole climb
yelling and fighting.
LUVIK@aol.com wrote:
> Yesterday I was driving a friend to a meeting. In explaining to the
> friend the difference between static and dynamic in the social arena, I
> said that the static social quality was to drive down the road and not
> in the ditch. But if a truck turns into your side of the road, you'd
> better allow for a dynamic solution to this new situation or you will be
> dead. In the instant you will probably head for the ditch. You have
> allowed a dynamic social pattern of quality to take the place of a
> static social pattern of quality.
I also find examples are the best way to explain DQ and SQ otherwise we
get bogged down in abstractions. Driving statically and safely vs
verging off the road to save your life is a nice clear example if you're
trying to explain it to a newbie. The only thing that worries me is that
it might lead to a too superficial understanding of D vs S.
Suppose, for example, I am a person who always drives in the ditch
rather than on the road. When I play video games I do spend more time
crashing into fences, ditches and other cars than I do on the road, so
it's not too difficult to imagine. Driving into ditches is what's normal
for me - it's the static pattern. The dynamic pattern is when I
miraculously drive that one perfect circuit.
The point being that dynamic and static can't necessarily be determined
by watching a situation. You have to actually be experiencing it to know
the difference. Dynamic is just the next foothold up the mountain. It's
what's good for you now. Dynamic quality seems unstructured the first
time it happens, but if the situation repeats you'll soon develop static
patterns to deal with it. Suppose you had to swerve to avoid trucks
every day. Your reflexes and driving skills would get sharper.
Eventually it would become a habit.
Neal described DQ as (amongst other things)
> The new, the
> unknown set in juxtaposition to the known such that it tests the worthiness
> of a static value-set
"set in juxtaposition to the known" is the key phrase. What's unknown
depends on what's known.
Ken wrote
> If it is indeed the case that Quality is responsible for the existence
> of the inorganic static level and is also responsible for the biological
> static level, the bulk of which occurred before sentience appeared, then
> it seems to me that we must differentiate between non-sentient Quality
> and sentient Quality.
But doesn't P imply that all Quality is sentient?
There's static sentience and dynamic sentience and the sentience of an
atom is very different from the sentience of a Texan, but they are all
types of experience and consequently value
Diana
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST