Classic Quality and Romantic Quality are human constructs. They are ways
that humans devised to divide up the world. They are roughly the equivalent
of yin and yang or intellect and emotions. Classic roughly = yang &
intellectual understanding. Romantic roughly = yin & emotional
understanding. Actually they are a continuum with CQ at one end and RQ at
the other. We can choose to examine anything intellectually or emotionally.
Classic Quality has esthetic aspects and Romantic Quality has underlying
form aspects. They are not the same as Dynamic - Static Quality. Dynamic &
Static are inherent in the nonverbal objects. All things human and nonhuman
have aspects of Dynamic and Static Quality within them. All this is made
clearer in my essay which will be posted next week.
Gary Jaron
----- Original Message -----
From: elliot hallmark <onoffononoffon@hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: MD Schematic.
> Hey Squok,
>
> you said:
> 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.
>
>
> I say:
> Well, just because neither are Quality with a capital Q doesnt mean they
are
> the same. Infact, having them the same conflicts with Pirsigs realization
> that romantic and classic quality are not the best division for the MoQ
and
> that DQ and SQ are. Pirsig says they are equivilant and yet he hadn't
> devised DQ/SQ at this point. he chosses classic and romantic to seperate
> two types of people, and i dont think Pirsig means to imply that romantics
> are more dynamic and therefor of a higher order than classics (whose
> divsions of the world flux as quickly as romantics perceptions do).
>
> Squok:
> 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?
>
> Elliot:
> replace classic and romantic with static and Dynamic and i refer you to
the
> buddhist truth "samsara is nirvana". The world is undivided and
infinitely
> divisable, the potential for static patterns (divsions) is inherent in the
> mind of the sentient being. the world does not change, not does the
> individual, bur perception shifts from delusion to Quality.
>
> Again, the classic romantic split was devised to explain why some enjoy
art
> and some enjoy philosophy. artists and philosophers see the same thing
> inorder to derive their respective perceptions, but that is DQ not
romantic.
> Artists find romantic and philosophers and mechanics find classic.
> Mechanics often dont like abstract art nor atists equations. the
confusion
> here stems from what i think to be Pirsigs confusion before finally
> realizing the structure of the current MoQ.
>
> Elliot
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
>
> 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
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