Rob and all:
Good question, Rob. Yes. The Pirsigian description of DQ is a static
intellectual pattern. It refers to something that is not static. It points
to something beyond the levels, but the description itself is static. I
don't see anything particularly objectionable in this. Pirsig makes
apologies for reducing the mystery to words and ideas and admits that many
mystics would consider it some kind of "sin", but of all the immoral acts in
the world this offends me the least.
DMB
Rob had said...
I have a quick thought and tell me what you think.
When does something move from dynamic "mysterious" quality into the
understandable static level. When does the threshold get crossed?
If we all acknowledge the asthetic nature of dynamic quality and
seem to
share it's meaning, does that not make it static? The very fact that we are
acknowledging it as something real, a concept beyond interpretation, doesn't
it then become static? Has the aesthetic moved from being dynamic quality to
simply another static level? This is a serious question and probebly the
biggest source of the debate in the MOQ. Even saying "dynamic quality" makes
it a static concept.
The words "Dynamic quality" are meaningless, they represent what cannot be
put into words. When you finally understand dynamic quality you have
completely lost it. By understanding it, it has become static.
This is why I believe that there is a static level emerging above
intellectual, because we are all cool with Quality. It is not mysterious
any more, we have put it into words and we agree that it exists. But more
so, it has changed our view of what is "dynamic quality", which can never be
understood.
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 - 16:01:57 BST