Hi there!
Yes, i like what you say.
I was a little clumsy?
But, you see, if quality is undefined then we cannot say anything about it -
only about our relationship to it? That is were your, 'Disruption, that is,
Disruption of patterns is not inherently good' sounds better.
In my view, and i should like to know what you feel about this, is that very
static reality is actually maintained by a constant disruption - but
disruption about or near an equilibrium?
That is to say, for example, that Protons, a very stable pattern in our view,
are disrupted all the time, but fall back into Proton-ness immediately for
lack of latching potential?
The act of writing an e-mail however, mediates much disruption of patterns;
and a good e-mail is the product of good latching?
I have been giving much thought to the notion of static patterns as
'Mediators' of DQ for some time now.
My fascination is this: Although disruption may not be inherently good, there
does appear to be an arrow of, 'Betterness' and this betterness does appear
to be the product of DQ?
Thoughts please?
All the best,
Squonk. :-)
In a message dated 10/11/01 12:55:56 AM GMT Daylight Time,
oisin@o-connell.net writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD RE: quality is good
Date: 10/11/01 12:55:56 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: oisin@o-connell.net (oisin@o-connell.net)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
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