John Ryan Conlon wrote (Tue, 9 Mar 1999) !!!!!!!
Hello MD
> I'm relatively new, so if my ideas sound rather strange, please excuse =
> me.
Ryan and group.
You are ahead of our time (1999) :-) but warmly welcome anyway.
Newcomers always have their special angle to the Quality issue and it
takes some time to tune in to their wavelength so bear with me.
> To understand Dynamic Quality, I always looked back on Pirsig's example =
> of playing a piece of music and finding beauty in it, then it slowly =
> becoming less beautiful I thought to myself that the beauty must be the =
> dynamic part of the song, because its presence is that which changes, =
> while the notes of the song remain the same. Beauty must be an =
> experience. And as this beauty wore off the song, I supposed that =
> ugliness grew. Although the song was possessed by beauty, it must also =
> have been possessed by ugliness, thus making it what we call "normal," =
> or static. However, as you hear other songs, that beauty or that =
> ugliness remains the very same as all the other times you say that =
> something is beautiful or ugly. It appeared that only their amounts, =
> possessed by a particular object, changed.
.....snip snip....
Your message on beauty goes to the the core of the quality idea which
is: There is no OBJECTIVE measuring rod for beauty (or for anything
else for that matter), and no permanence to the beauty/ugliness
percentage; what starts as beauty may soon turn stale and
unattractive.
This is demonstrated in countless different ways: An innocent
example: a person from one culture finds music from another
tradition incomprehensible. Worse: An emaciated girl may find
herself too fat if her own culture's models are skinny. The
last example is so weird that Subject-Object metaphysics has to
call it "illness" so as not to become compromised, but it is
really normal; objectivity vanishes like the gambler's
luck once we start to examine things, even the most objective
phenomenon there is - matter - dissolves in modern physics.
Not to retell the whole story, but this was what Phaedrus of
ZMM realized to such an extent that it drove him to quit
school and start his quest that finally brought about the
Quality insight: That there is a reality more basic than the
alleged Subject/Object one. Now, to what I believe is
your quandary; the elusive "beauty" of the proverbial song.
Generally (as said above), what we find familiar is determined
by our culture (the social and intellectual levels), but what
we find beautiful is Dynamic Quality. The beauty may or may
not be "familiar", but it it can't last; it has to settle down
as static.
What I have said is perhaps not much different to
what you have seen yourself, but it sounded like you wanted
the song to POSSESS beauty (value), but it is always the other
way around: THE VALUE POSSESSES THE SONG..... and never stops
to do so even if it "deteriorates" into static value.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST