to the squad:
i've been following the conversation regarding What is Dynamic Quality, and it seems to me that the very question invites SOM thinking since an answer to it becomes the object of your subject.
has anyone been able to figure out how we can avoid SOM thinking? horse? platt? diana? glove? ant? maggie? bodvar? others?
i keep remembering Carl Sagan's analogy to a two-dimensional universe where we would be flat as a parcheesi chip on a gameboard with only two dimensions, length and width, in our reality. if someone spoke to us from above, we would hear the voice but we wouldn't be able to discern where it was coming from since we wouldn't know what up or down was lacking the dimension of depth.
isn't our discussion on what DQ is, all about semantics then? a question of language rather than a quantifying answer? isn't language all we have which leads us in the direction of SOM thinking?
i ask again, has anyone been able to figure out a way to avoid SOM thinking?
Pirsig came closest to describing DQ by saying it was what laid between the levels, the active part that caused the static levels to become dynamic and experience change.
there is another analogy that we can make to come close to understanding it...that is the mechanism of continental drift. it lies between the plates and makes them move, reshapes them, and produces changes at all levels...inorganic and biological which consequently affect the social and the intellect levels, as well.
potential...experience...passion...come close to it. but let's not kid ourselves...close is all we'll ever come.
lithien
Who looks outside, dreams;
Who looks inside, awakes.
~*~Carl Jung~*~
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila.html
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