In a message dated 5/23/02 10:32:49 PM GMT Daylight Time,
onoffononoffon@hotmail.com writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Schematic.
Date: 5/23/02 10:32:49 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: onoffononoffon@hotmail.com (elliot hallmark)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hey Squok and the rest of the thread contributers,
The descriptions of Romantic and classic Quality here sound like what i
think they were originally to Pirsig: early concepts of static and dynamic
Quality. He eventually decided that these prototypes were not the best way
to divide up Quality, but the train metaphor is a great example of how
Dynamic and static were what he really had in mind. The chain you are
discussing sounds an aweful lot like Dynamic Quality leading the way with
Classic/static patterns in the wake. So, to not confuse romantic Quality
with dynamic Quality, this is my understanding of the relationship between
the two:
Perception of Quality for Intellectual units is based on patterns of
personal history and social mediations. Appreciation of either romantic or
classic Quality depends on these static patterns. One can appreciate
romantic quality without understanding classic and one can appreciate
classic without understanding romantic. Personal history and social
influences determine (please take that word losely) whether an individual
can appreciate the undivided pile and the divided pile. Scientists often
dont appreciate abstract art (high romanit Quality according to Pirsig) and
Painters rarely appreciate that e^iPi + 1 = 0 or that F = GMm/rr. Romantic
seems more fundemental because it is less based on logic, but to a
scientist, classic seems more fundemental as romantic is just idiocy and the
universe is a reasonable entity (despite Quantum mechanics). One may
appreciate either without caring at all about the other, although there are
almost always aspects of both in every perception.
The concept of yin and Yang is apparent here. Classic being the Yang,
action, and Romantic the yin, inaction (not however non-action). One may
enjoy Yang all day and never pay attention to Yin or the other way around.
If you are talking about Romantic Quality creating classic then your
actually just using different words for Dynamic/static. If you look at the
dichotomy drawn by Pirsig of classic people and romantic people you see
however that classic types are not an extention of romantic types, they are
not more complicated elaborations, but they just appreciate things
differently, or different things. Remebering a painting and getting joy
from that is NOT the same as Classic quality, and what strikes a scientist
about the world is not Romantic Quality. this comes from confusing romantic
and classic with Dynamic and static as pirsig himself bagan to do.
Scientists and painters both experience Dynamic Quality and draw static
patterns from it (memories or interpretations of art and equations and
metaphysics from classic understanding). Painters enjoy different staic
patterns than scientists, we call a painters patterns romantic and a
scientists classic. Both of these intellectual static patterns are derived
from social mediations. Example: I like Punk rock alot more than older far
eastern music because i "understand" where punk is coming from (musical
theory and social influences) and i appreciate that F=GMm/rr more than
shrodiners (spelling im sorry) wave equation because i "understand" the
concepts better. and neither classic nor romantic is more pure or
fundemental as the world is both divided and undivided, classical thinkers
are not doing something nonfundemental to the world any more than romantics.
Elliot
>>
Hi Elliot,
I take your points but there may be a slight problem?
I have a feeling Dynamic quality and Static quality are NOT Quality with a
capital Q!
'DQ and SQ' is a Classic knife up job on Quality itself which remains
undefined.
Therefore, DQ would be equivalent with Romantic quality, and Static quality
would be equivalent with Classic quality, which is exactly what Pirsig says
they are in ZMM.
Each level of the Lila MOQ would then require both a Dynamic and a static
element.
We would have Inorganic DQ and SQ, Organic DQ and SQ, Social DQ and SQ, and
Intellectual DQ and SQ. The MOQ itself is an Intellectual SQ which has
Romantic DQ as its essence.
I use Romantic quality here as seen in the Train analogy where it is seen as
leading a process of discrimination prior to Classic quality.
So to summarise, each level of morality has a dynamic potential to exist
independently from Quality and its ability to latch is its static actuality.
One more thing: If Classic quality emerges from the undifferentiated holistic
harmony of Romantic quality, does that mean that all static actualities are
'already there' in Romantic quality as potential?
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:16 BST