Jonathan said
"The whole existence of a static pattern is in reference to the dynamic, so
the static pattern *IS* a response to the dynamic. I also note that every
static pattern encompasses a degree of dynamism in the things it "allows" to
vary."
I agree with you here, i think static patterns relate to the dynamic as a
function of time and acceptance (time can also be considered as the movement
of the dynamic and acceptance perhaps as a gradual awakening to a percieved
dynamic of greater quality in what is becoming another's static pattern).As
an aside though, are there any static patterns really or are they percieved
to be as such due to a limited lifespan.If the last 2000 years of values are
viewed in Fast forward would we not see a continuous change in values?
In relation to Wim's post I would put it as dynamic quality is a void that
can be re-experienced time and again. As human beings we change at different
rates and absorb new static patterns at different rates and different static
patterns we have "taken on"(to the previous time) make us think we are
seeing something new where infact the dynamic q is the same indefinable its
allways been.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan B. Marder [mailto:jonathan.marder@newmail.net]
Sent: 20 June 2001 11:07
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Subject: Re: MD Back on topic
Dear Dan, Roger, Platt, Andrea and all,
This has been a great week for the MoQ, and you may wonder why I've been so
quiet.
The "excuse" has been lack of time to write, but the real reason is that Dan
"got me good".
> JONATHAN to DAN
> >Where do you get the idea that societies
> >can't
> >respond to Dynamic Quality? Wasn't the Zuni story about just that? Aren't
> >Platt's and Roger's arguments in support of the free market about society
> >remaining dynamic?
>
DAN's reply
> From Lila, of course:
>
> "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason: societies and thoughts
> and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These
> patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a
> living being can do that." (pg. 185 Bantam paperback)
>
That's a good hit Dan - gave me a lot to think about. At first I was angry
at
Pirsig - "what a stupid thing to write," I thought. Rather than concede
Dan's
home run, I decided to think about it a bit more philosophically (isn't that
what we are here for?).
Let me start with my "disappointment" at Pirsig.
ROGER describes each of
Pirsig's novels as a
>mystical journey
What I now realise is that Lila and ZAMM are quite different:
ZAMM is a journey that really takes you somewhere. In contrast, Lila is a
shopping trip. Maybe a better metaphor is ZAMM as a gourmet meal and Lila as
a
shopping trolley (shopping cart to you Americans). There are certainly some
great ingredients in the trolley, but they need to be cleaned, peeled,
sorted,
diced, blended, poached, grilled etc., etc. I get the feeling that Pirsig
put
out Lila under some sort of pressure or obligation to give his readers a
second novel.
Roger, Platt, you are partly right:
>Pirsig leaves us on our own . . .
What he has done is some very successful and discriminating shopping, but he
has left the cooking to us . . .
Now we can peel open Pirsig's statement . . .
I think that Pirsig's portrayal of static patterns as non-responsive
contradicts other things he has written. The whole existence of a static
pattern is in reference to the dynamic, so the static pattern *IS* a
response
to the dynamic. I also note that every static pattern encompasses a degree
of
dynamism in the things it "allows" to vary. The pattern called the River
Ganges "allows" endless water molecules to flow freely and dynamically
through, but the pattern is maintained NO MATTER WHICH particular molecules
are in the river at any time. Thus, Hindus can and DO enter the same river
twice. Each human is unique, yet the pattern of the human being ALLOWS for
an
infinity of differences.
Thus, if we are going to use Pirsig's statement in our recipe, I think that
the better part of the ingredient is this:
When he talks about "living being", he is not talking about a pattern of
quality at any level - not inorganic, not organic, not social and not
intellectual. He is talking about something that is more than all of those
put
together. Furthermore, I think Pirsig is not talking about just any living
being but about MAN. He is telling us YET AGAIN that "man is the measure".
In his superbly brilliant post of 18th June,
ANDREA presents this as a fundamental moral issue:
>to be a "full" human being, you will have to use
>your own head rather than social conventions to take
>your own moral decisions. And be ready, because it
>*may* happen, too, that your own
>head puts you *against* the society you live in.
Bravo! Andrea deftly demolishes the defence of every war criminal who ever
claimed he was "just following orders".
"Man is the measure" is the heart and sole of the Quality idea. It's so
simple
an idea that even a small child can understand it . . . . . .
. . . . . . but it can be cooked up in astounding and sophisticated recipes
worthy of the greatest chefs.
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:22 BST