From: Kevin (kevin@xap.com)
Date: Sat Dec 14 2002 - 00:28:10 GMT
Matt:
I share a lot of your questions about Dynamic Quality. I've come to the
opinion that we can't tell what is Dynamic and what is degenerate until,
as Platt recognizes, enough time has past. But I think this then means
that Dynamic Quality is a label we put on things after they've happened
to denote moral superiority. I don't think this means our labeling is
arbitrary, it is simply descriptive from our present context.
To save Dynamic Quality as a term to describe present human behavior, I
think we can use it in our own lives to describe the feelings and
impressions we have about things that "just seem to be better." But
what "just seems better" to us now, may end up being extremely
degenerate. I'm sure Hitler might have employed Dynamic Quality to
describe his feelings about Jews, but it has been shown pretty
conclusively (even from the world-context Hitler was in) that he was
pretty degenerate. The point is that I think history will be the judge
and jury of Dynamic Quality and I don't think any case will ever solved
and closed with any sense of absolute, ahistorical certainty.
So, I think of Dynamic Quality as a descritive label, rather than as a
prescriptive term that has any force. For if we use DQ to describe our
actions in the present, and provide an argument for why we predict that
history will judge in favor of us, I think all the persuasive force is
from the argument, not from the use of the label DQ.
Kevin:
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I think we approach the issue from
a common angle. Namely, a pragmatic one.
(I must confess that I personally substitute the word TAO for Quality or
DQ when I read Pirsig. It must be a limitation of my own nature that I
am unable to shake the subjective connotations that I have for the word
'quality'. Since I have no a priori definitions of TAO (being a lowly
westerner) it makes it easier for me to maintain the mystic/unknowable
aspect of the Universe.)
Anyhow, once again I'm reminded of the Chinese proverb I quoted to begin
this line of questioning:
There once was a farmer in China who had an ox. One day the ox ran away.
All his neighbors came to console him, but he was not distressed. He
told them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days later the ox
returned and with it was a horse. All his neighbors came to him to
congratulate him on his good fortune, but again he would not mind them
telling them, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A week later his son was
riding the horse, fell and broke his arm. Again the neighbors came to
wish him condolences and tell him how very unlucky he was. The farmer
shook his head and said, "Good luck, bad luck, who knows?" A few days
later, war was declared and all able-bodied young men were conscripted,
but because on his son's broken arm, he was not. "Good luck, bad luck,
who knows?"
This would go along with Platt's comment about time vindicating our
choices (or assumptions about choices) and your comment that "we can't
tell" until time as passed. In each instance, the Farmer refrains from
ascribing Benevolence or Malevolence to the Universe. When the ox runs
away, the Farmer does NOT bemoan the 'unfairness' of it all. Perhaps
even more telling, IMO, is that the Farmer does NOT take the opposite
view either, i.e. expressing the sentiment that "It will work out for
the best" or "God works in mysterious ways" or some other ascription of
Hope. The Farmer instead (and wisely, IMO) withholds his own petty,
finite, limited perspective and judgment and allows for the Universe to
decide whether this thing is bad or good.
The Farmer awaits the TAO.
With effort to be patient,
Kevin
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 14 2002 - 00:28:24 GMT