. (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sun, 5 Jul 1998 17:44:16 +0100
Hi Horse and LS:
Horse wrote:
> Pirsig made the point that DQ on its own is chaos, whereas SQ on
> its own is stagnation and death of all patterns. It is the combination
> of the two that is Quality.
Pirsig made the point that DQ is NOT chaotic. In "Lila" Chap. 11 he says:
"... the idea that life is evolving away from any law just draws a baffled
question mark. It seems to say that all life is headed toward chaos, since
chaos is the only alternative to structural patterns that a law-bound
metaphysics can conceive. But Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it
is not chaotic."
Lets agree, however, that DQ and SQ are a needed duality. Perhaps we can
also agree that other dualities (such as those engendered by the
proposition A or not A) are absolutely essential when trying to communicate
meaningfully with one another. Otherwise, self-contradictory assertions
such as "there are no absolutes" and "nothing lasts forever" are in danger
of being taken seriously even though they are nonsensical on their face.
Horse concluded:
> My contribution for the DQ/SQ split is:
>
> DQ: Pre-intellectual transition from one state to another state.
>
> SQ: Gradual decay of any system towards obscurity and
> dissolution.
Nothing is said here about Quality (desirable or undesirable, high or low,
good or bad) although "obscurity and dissolution" sounds like something to
be avoided no matter what level you happen to be on at the moment. I would
prefer a definition that says something directly about Quality which is why
I like DQ as "Change for the better." I'd also like to see SQ cast in a
positive light.
So here's my contribution:
DQ is change for freedom. SQ is permanence for order. Both are values.
Neither can survive without the other.
Platt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST