Lithien-
I agree whole-heartedly that metaphor is the key to explaination of the
MoQ. Have you ever tried explaining Pirsig's ideas to someone who hasn't
read the books?
In ZMM Pirsig says something to the effect of "you can never have the same
experience twice, only analogous experiences. If this is true (and I
believe it obviously is) than metaphor is the only way we have to convey
the essence of experiences from one person to another.
I was in class a few days ago (I am a rhetoric major at Cornell) when my
teacher read the "Leopards in the Temple" parable and asked the class to
explain what it meant. It didn't take me long to guess that Kafka was
talking about Dynamic Quality. It lead me to think about the idea of SOM
and MoQ simply being descriptions of reality (remember there is no truth,
only Quality of explanation). I realized that there might be no need to
try to hang a textbook style definition on DQ. After all, if a parable can
explain its essence better than some intellectual taxonomy, than the
parable is a higher Quality description. Why bother coming up with a lower
Quality description at all?
Richard Budd
At 08:32 AM 10/23/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard Budd <rmb29@cornell.edu>
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 7:33 PM
>Subject: MD Leopards in the Temple
>
>
>hi, richard:
>
>you said:
>
>
>>Franz Kafka's parable on Static and Dynamic Quality---
>>
>>"Leopards break into the temple and drink to the dregs what is in the
>>sacrificial pitchers. This is repeated over and over again; finally it can
>>be calculated in advance and becomes a part of the ceremony."
>>
>>This metaphorical language is one in which we can more accessibly begin to
>understand the process of Dynamic Quality. I see DQ as being just beyond
>our reach...or more precisely just beyond the reach of language.
>
>let me expound on this further: DQ is out there between, around , under
>the static levels (*see note) and as such it cannot be pinned down by
>language since the act of putting it into words by creating an orderly and
>rational process destroys the very dynamism which categorizes it.
>
>* note: much as magma moves the continental plates around and then these
>very plates are submerged by pressures created in the movement itself and
>are recycled into the very magma that destroyed them. for me, this analogy
>to the theory of continental drift comes very close to a way of visualizing
>the mechanism at work in MOQ. the continental plates are the static levels.
>the heated magma is dynamic quality. both are needed for the mechanism to
>work. the magma has to be heated and under pressure to the point where it
>will move the static plates around. at the same time the movement of the
>plates guarantee more magma will be around since it is the submersion of the
>plates which is its source.
>
>therefore, DQ can be best understood as a dynamic process rather than an
>entity...and metaphorical language the closest more precise way to edge
>towards an attempt towards visualizing it more clearly. much like dreams
>use what seem to be disorderly symbols which later on can be interpreted by
>the dreamer and made some kind of sense of.
>
>im trying real hard to put into words something which i sense to be true.
>is anyone understanding me out there?
>
>Lithien
>
>>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>>body of email
>>
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
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