From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 11 2005 - 15:59:24 GMT
I notice that the relationship between the terms 'Quality', 'Dynamic
Quality' and 'static quality' is back on the table.
I suggest that the view that 'Quality' remains something above and beyond
static and Dynamic Quality within the MOQ structure is incorrect. I think
the confusion arises from the transition between the two books. In ZMM
there is no reference to 'Dynamic Quality', being that 'static quality' is
not referred to in any clear way. As I see it, at a certain point in LILA
the single term 'Quality' is effectively replaced(*) with the two terms -
'static quality' and 'Dynamic Quality'.
I have asked Pirsig about all of this recently, he replied as follows:
"When ZMM was written there was no division between Dynamic Quality and
static quality and the term Quality then meant what is now meant by Dynamic
Quality. Today I tend to think of Quality as covering both Dynamic and
static quality. So far no problems have arisen with this confusion of terms
but if they do arise I would guess that they could be eliminated by
refraining from using the term Quality alone." [Pirsig to Turner, November
2005]
"The 'static quality' of LILA...seems to me to be an expansion of the
'Quality' of ZMM" [Pirsig to Turner, August 2005]
The expansion of Quality to include a static as well as a Dynamic component
occurs in Chapter 9 of LILA so I would suggest that after this chapter the
term 'Dynamic Quality' is used to refer to what was termed 'Quality' in ZMM
and, conversely, Pirsig's use of 'Quality' alone can be read as 'Dynamic
Quality' prior to the start of Chapter 9 but as a reference to both static
and Dynamic Quality together subsequent to it.
PRE-LILA(9) QUALITY = DYNAMIC QUALITY
POST-LILA(9) QUALITY = DYNAMIC QUALITY + STATIC QUALITY
Although I agree with the argument concerning the redundancy of having two
undefined terms, given the clarification above I think that, post-LILA, it
is a mistake to consider 'Quality' to be undefined and 'Dynamic Quality' to
be defined as has been recently suggested. If anything it would be the
other way around i.e. Quality, insofar as it 'includes' static quality, is
partially defined and Dynamic Quality is the undefined component of Quality.
However, whilst I think this convention can be used to harmonise the two
books, I propose that in ongoing discussions the term 'Quality' alone should
be dropped, as Pirsig suggests, to avoid problems resulting from a lack of
clarity.
(*) I can't think of any situation where the use of the term 'Quality'
could not be more clearly replaced with either 'Dynamic Quality', 'static
quality' or 'static and Dynamic Quality'.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Fri Nov 11 2005 - 16:37:50 GMT