on 10/3/01 9:40 AM, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com at SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
> ... Quality, that is, Dynamic Quality is not good.
> DQ is behind disruption of static patterns, and this does not entail a move
> towards higher quality.
It does in retrospect. From a static POV, yes, it's impossible to tell
whether a disruption of patterns will be dynamic or regressive - but DQ is
not synonomous with disruption of patterns, although it may always coincide
with it. It would have been better to say:
> ... Disruption, that is, Disruption of patterns is not inherently good.
...
> Quality has to be contained in order for anything to survive.
> So, static quality is just as desirable as DQ.
Yeah, that's something I've been pondering too...
I'm wondering if DQ and static quality aren't analogous to the
Positive/Negative Yin and Yang (not the same though), and that Quality is
the unifying Way/Tao in this picture. It seems that Pirsig means DQ is
closer to Quality, but I am not sure that this is satisfactory; is he trying
to metapysically eat his cake and still have it?
Or, maybe
"Quality and Dynamic Quality are the two persons, of the same substance, of
the Holy Binary"
Heeheehee...
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 - 16:01:34 BST