In a message dated 98-10-18 13:05:40 EDT, you write:
<< i do not believe we can assign any function whatsoever to time when we
deal with the concept of Dynamic Quality. it is tempting to assign
simultaneaous-ness to the notion of the relationship of time and DQ but we
must remember it is only an abstract notion of what DQ could be like
time-wise. still, the experimental research that has been done in the
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox seems to lead in that direction.
Pirsig writes:
"...the price for being Dynamic is instability. Any Dynamic situation is
vunerable to attrition and corruption and even to complete collapse." (Pg.
349)
it seems to me that if the Dynamic is unstable, then static quality
represents stability. furthermore, time is part of that description of
stability, while time has no representation in an unstable Dynamic way
simply because we are not aware of it directly in any way.
It seems that everyone thinks that to be dynamic is the best thing in the
world. I disagree. This might confuse people but I think the most dynamic
thing to do sometimes it to be as static as possible.
Think about the insane, the only way for the insane to contribute back to
society is for them to become static, so they can communicate their dynamic
ideas to others. It might be moral for the individual to stay
dynamic(insane), but then the static pattern of society didn't have to create
a rule that society should care for its insane. Maybe they should have just
killed the abnormal, nonproductive members...
Remember, to be totally dynamic is to be categorically insane.
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