From: Jim Ledbury (jim.ledbury@dsl.pipex.com)
Date: Fri Mar 19 2004 - 11:22:30 GMT
Sam Norton wrote:
>..... The fact is, god CAN be used interchangeably with DQ, just like tao can.
>
>I think the equation of God (or tao) with DQ is a mistake, even leaving aside theological quibbles.
>As I understand the MoQ, the equivalent of God (or tao) is Quality - which is then subdivided into
>dynamic and static, and no subdivision can be the highest term.
>
>The common lapse into equating dynamic quality with God (or tao) reflects cultural biases in favour
>of innovation and "progress" rather than Pirsig's own thought, IMHO. What makes a DQ innovation
>positive rather than negative is precisely its integration with static patterns - so DQ and SQ are
>yoked together like yin and yang. Pirsig preserves that balance. Many contributors do not - again,
>IMHO ;-)
>
>Sam
>
>
>
>
I'll agree with Sam that the highest 'good' is reached when DQ and SQ
are in most accord. Sometimes though the SQ can't take what DQ dishes
out and so become 'bad' - although from the SQ's POV it's the DQ that is
'bad'. In this sense DQ could be equated with Spinoza's concept of God
- with the understanding that Spinoza wrote in the context of 17th c.
theology of course. Although sometimes I suppose it's the DQ arising
from a lower level that is probelmatic - DQ according to drug addicts or
diseases, but we evolve social/biological defences against this (or
should). The sort of physical level DQ that would come from a supernova
explosion within 20 light years or a star disrupting the Oort cloud we
probably can't (at the moment at least). (Maybe my use of DQ here does
not accord with some viewpoints, but I'm of the position that SQ is
similar to a standing wave of quality and that DQ is what happens at all
levels: the hierarchy exists because one level presupposes the lower
levels - if it's 'good' to them, then the lower levels have a 'duty' to
cooperate, if not... well it depends on the circumstances. The caveat
is that the current higher levels should still be open to DQ acting at
their level and be aware that new levels may be emerging. They should
also be aware that they depend on the wellbeing of the lower levels).
With regard to the Yin/Yang thing, (I'm afraid I'm discussing largely
from memory - my Richard Wilhelm translation of the Dao De Jing is in
storage), I think quality is better viewed as being the 'ridgepole' ,
that is the cutting edge of the action of the Dao. In fact the
ridgepole is the basis for the ideogram for the Ji, or life-force. The
DQ/SQ equation with Yang/Yin is useful in that too much of either is an
imbalance.
Regards
Jim.
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 Mar 19 2004 - 11:25:29 GMT