Sojourner (sojourner@vt.edu)
Fri, 17 Jul 1998 18:18:54 +0100
At 10:06 PM 7/17/98, Diana McPartlin wrote:
>Keith and squad
>
>Liked the essay and the conclusion (greatly simplified) that static
>quality is pattern and dynamic quality is not-pattern. It's a more
>refined explanation than change vs stability and avoids arguments on
>things like "constant changes" etc.
>
I gotta throw my two ¢ in here and say I like that, although the
definition of a "pattern" is up for grabs.
OED definition 8c:
c. fig. An arrangement or order of things or activity in abstract
senses;
order or form discernible in things, actions, ideas, situations, etc.
which of course is an endrun, because the only arrangement of
reality is the one which you discern to exist, which means all we're
doing is saying pattern/non-pattern is a synonymn for SQ/DQ.
It's not a definition, it's a SYNONYMN.
If all we're looking for is synonymns, I can understand the value
in that, as it gives us a better handle on what we're dealing with here.
On the other hand, a more explanation/definition approach would
truly be "new", instead of translating Pirsig's works into different
usage. Two different forms of the same bible here. KJV and NOE.
>But still we're missing any mention of morality and how it fits into
>this. Pirsig states quite clearly that dynamic quality is of a higher
>morality than static. And, in case nobody noticed this Pirsig quote from
>personal correspondence with Anthony, here it is again:
>
Higher I think is misleading. Higher is a culturally biased word which
in this case I believe RMP meant as a synonymn for "better". In a
strictly
up-down 3D axis level, one rung of a ladder is no better or worse than
any rung of a ladder.
So take away the 3D axis reference of "higher", and agree that he meant
DQ was BETTER than SQ we can get a real grip on it. Just in case you
need some more talking on this, consider that the Tao clearly states
that Tao Quality is LOWER than everything NOT higher.
So... is DQ somehow BETTER than SQ? Pirsig himself examined what
would happen if we had DQ or SQ all the time, and not the mix of
both, and how DQ on its own would be non-stop chaos, and SQ
on its own would be equally disastrous.
No. DQ is just the head of the serpent. That is the only thing
"higher"
or "better" about it. Or the head of the train. Or whatever other
analogy you wish to use. I use serpent because I think the legend
of Ouroborous is a better analogy than a train, where DQ would be
the head of the serpent, and SQ would be it's huge elongated body.
Of course DQ is biting its own tail so it is a ring/cycle/wheel which
is of course very Buddhist and more Zen-ny than a bananafish.
I think a "better" question or angle of attack would be whether
morality is an infinite ladder going "up" or "on", like a line or train
track,
or whether like our physical understanding of everything, it is an
endless
loop
of infinite size.
DQ is where we're going
SQ is where we are
>"Every time you discover for the first time that something is better
>than something else - that is where Dynamic Quality exists. There is no
>fixed static location for it."
>
Exactly... but it doesn't exist there either, it doesn't exist at all.
DQ is where SQ does not exist. It's the gap in your fingers when
you stare at the sun through your palm. It's the hole in the walls
which form the windows in the room of yourself. It's the opening which
makes the door possible, but it isn't the door.
And so on....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST