lithien says
>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.
I agree with you in that when we try to quantify/qualify DQ you will always be
putting it in the realm of SOM thinking. In fact this is Pirsig's main
obstacle in writing LILA at all.
The best way to avoid SOM thinking is to stay where DQ is most apparent -
direct experience. The difficulty is keeping the direct experience relevant
to the needs of today's society.
Think of the commercials that they make on TV and in print. So many ads
trying to reach out to find a target audience. Will it work or will people
think it's just a stupid idea. DQ will take a creative person's vision and
the SQ of his/her society to take a step forward. This is why diversity is so
important to MOQ. The idea with the most quality for it's milieu will win
out.
Does this help?
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 - 16:02:36 BST