Hi Squad:
It's been awhile since my last (well, first) posting. I've been
concentrating on academics and I suppose what Platt would call the
"drivel of sophomoric dormitory bull sessions." I'm writing in response
to some of my expierences participating in these.
Having more or less caught up on reading my e-mail, it doesn't really
seem like any of the personal "definitions" of DQ are really
irreconciable with anyone else's. This variation is good; without it,
the absolute that would result would, (as Pirsig mentions many times)
destroy the dynamic nature of this Quality. I suppose there are a
hundred others terms one could name, but to me, the term that best
captures what DQ is, (I say this witht he understanding that the term
isn't DQ itself and that DQ can never be subordinated in such a way and
still remain DQ) is passion. Passion -- not in the romatic sense -- is
energy, exaltation, freedom, intensity, pure, pure inspiration. I think
that what I've always thought to be passion is really just DQ.
That being said, I think one of the most important questions and/or
challenges posed by the MoQ is: how do you interact with Dynamic Quality
in your life? How do you make regular interaction a part of everyday
living? Perhaps the biggest tradegy the SOM has prepetrated is its
committment to the static and the dispassionate. The university I
attend is a monument errected to these principles. Bowed by tradition,
there is no freshness, no new perspective, no capacity or interest in
change. This possibility for change is an aspect of DQ I think has been
overlooked. IMO an answer to the above questions involves a committment
to change. By this I mean a committment to acheiving personal variation
in daily life. This isn't to say that one should force it -- that would
destroy the dynamic -- but it does mean possibly doing what those
"little voices" say. DQ doesn't always hit in a mushroom cloud flash of
inspiration; it is apparent in smaller, more subtle ways that I think
are very commonly overlooked. Many of these actions are impulsive,
possibly irrational, maybe detrimental, and inherantly important and
valuable. In LILA, Pirsig talks about a society needing to be open to
possible degeneracy to avoid shutting itself off from the beneficial
change wrought by DQ. This principle is certainly applicable to the
individual, (which would I guess be the biological level). "Quality is
what you like." What you like doesn't have to stand up to some
intellectual or social justification, it just needs to be acted upon.
We are talking about DYNAMIC Quality after all. The name itself implies
change, constant change. While never doing any static latching is
obviously detrimental and self-defeating, I think perhaps we do too
much. Every one has daily routines that are inherently static. Every
one exhibits (to varying extents) a corrective and conservative
perspective. When challenges and threats to our belief system arise, we
look to discredit, rather than examine them. We need to be curb this
tendancy by being aggressively open to DQ. That is, actively trying on
new sets of glasses even if the old ones are working fine. Changing,
not only in the face of discontent but also in the face of passive
satisfaction.
The students here, (as exhibited by those "bull sessions") because of
their committment to everyhting that is static and pre-existing, have
probably never felt the jolt of DQ inspiration, or the intensity,
passion, of the formation of an idea. They are committed to the static
institutions of political correctness, victorian mannerisms, and now,
emotional correctness. Speaking from the 20-nothing perspective, apathy
reigns supreme concerning anything that doesn't fall into the above
categories, which is basically everything of any importance. I can't
help but wonder if this symptom is somewhat connected to a failure to
perceive or intereact with prevaisive DQ. I think being influenced by
the force that is "the cutting edge of reality" implies a great
passionate, intense approach to life. Maybe this is where the eastern
concept of living your philosophy and the motorcycle approach of ZEN are
applicable. Be good, yes. But shouldn't we also be electric,
unconstrained, and exhuberiantly alive? The "cutting edge of reality"
is powerful, powerful stuff -- regardless of whatever else it might be
-- it seems we should be set on fire by it.
I guess what I'm saying is that following Diana's lead, (with regards to
convincing others about the viability of the MoQ) some of the personal
and social applications of this metaphysics should be explored.
I'm sorry that this is such a lame ending. I think I was distracted and
lost my connection to DQ.
Be Good AND Passionate
Kilian
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