> I'm not sure if I see what Rich is getting at (Glad to see you back!)
you have no idea how appropriate that is!!
> The thing that jumped out at me was the lack of distinction between
> Dynamic Quality and static quality. Dynamic and static are listed among
> the seven, but I think the MOQ insists that the difference between them
> is first and foremost.
could it not be said, that in order understand the relation between the
static and the dynamic, you must first understand that they are the same? i
believe they are, you just look at both in a different way. the real
difficulty, as i see it, is seeing the static AS dynamic, not seeing the
dynamic IN the static.
> Static quality can be defined and talked about.
no, our interpretation of dynamic quality leads to the creation of static
quality. pirsig said this himself, i cant remember the page number, but he
was talking about hearing a song that just hits you, you buy it, you
recommend it to your friends then you lose the feeling of impact you first
had. dynamic becomes static when you SEE it. hense, dynamic IS static.
the way you talk about it, it sounds as if they are different. you cannot
describe a static pattern, you can only describe how the dynamic pattern has
been SEEN by you and hense describe the form it has IN you. it is not
static quality, it's how you interpret dynamic quality.
The static patterns of
> values ARE the world we can touch and feel and understand, to a certain
> extent anyway. DQ, on the other hand, is associated with mysticism and
> is not definable precisely because it is NOT static, not patterned. We
> can sail, but we can't capture the wind in a box. Like DQ, we can feel
> the breeze but we can't nail it down. DQ is beyond static patterns, but
> that doesn't mean we can't experience it. When we talk about DQ, we're
> talking about mysticism, which is very hard to do.
DQ is not mysticism, it's that feeling of wonder that hits in the belly and
just rocks you. it's an inbuilt appreciation for something that you did not
expect did not believe could happen or for something that is beyond
expectation. it's not mystical, it's biological. mysticism implies a soul,
that is nonsence!
> The levels of static quality are much easier to talk about and to
> understand. We ARE those patterns, and so is the cosmos we live in.
but this is down to interpretation. can you describe your world? you
cannot because it is dynamic. what you can do, is describe hundreds of
times when part of that dynamic qualty has been SEEN by you.
Its
> all composed of static quality, the trick is to discern and discriminate
> according to the levels. This is where we can really get a handle on the
> "real world".
doesnt exist. see above.
> I think its pretty clear that Pirsig is saying that the static half of
> Quality was just as important and the original insight in ZAMM.
it is just as important as it is in effect the same thing only this time
corrupted by human sences.
regards
Rich ... you should put an "i believe" in front of most of that, i always
forget it when i write!
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST