From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Jul 31 2004 - 01:53:37 BST
Hello everyone
>Now if you are presented
>with two violins, one a mass produced 'stamped and glued job' and the other
>a
>strad, which one is better?
>One may say, "the strad is higher Quality," and many may agree, but i feel
>the MOQ has more to say...
>Violin, musician, social meaning and intellectual articulation are missing
>from the statement, "The strad is higher Quality than the mass produced
>violin,"
>although this statement is certainly empirically verifiable.
>The mass produced job may be played well by a master violinist like Stephan
>Grappelli for example, but how much better played the strad, and why?
>Coherence may be used here to indicate the flavour of moment in more
>detail.
>Do you feel this may be more suited to a society of MOQ driven
>intellectuals
>Dan? A society such as ours, here in the MOQ.org?
Are you saying the term coherence is a "strad" compared to the term quality?
I couldn't disagree with you more.
Mark 31-7-04: No. I am not saying that. I am suggesting that a strad's
relationship with a master player is more coherent than a mass produced model played
by a novice.
Dan:
I checked out the link you provided but it's out of date. Actually I came
across the same site some time ago and it was out of date then too. I'd be
leery of ordering anything from there. Thank you anyway.
Mark 31-7-04: I have just ordered something from there without problem. Funny
that ain't it?
Dan:
It appears you believe Dynamic Quality is a positive influence on static
quality. I had the opportunity to ask Robert Pirsig about this during the
work on the LC project:
Dan Glover: When you say Dynamic Quality is always affirmative, at first I
took it to mean that DQ is always positive. By comparing all three terms
[dictionary definitions omitted] I sense a common thread of evaluation
leading to confirmation, which is neither positive or negative. Those terms
come later, after further intellectualization. Is that your thinking too?
Robert Pirsig: Yes, my statement that Dynamic Quality is always affirmative
was not a wise statement, since it constitutes a limitation or partial
definition of Dynamic Quality. Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality
someone else can take whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it
and then dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question,
"What is Dynamic Quality?" is the ancient Vedic one -- "Not this, not that."
(LILA'S CHILD, page 527)
So I would say that when you construct diagrams as the one above you are
taking what is said about Dynamic Quality and making it into a static
pattern which can then be opposed by someone else. It doesn't seem to be a
wise move.
Thank you for your comments,
Dan
Mark 31-7-04: Evolution is defined by Pirsig as the migration of sq towards
DQ. The event stream is DQ in SODV. I do not believe these statements say
anything affirmative about DQ.
Coherence is an MOQ derived static indication of harmony and aesthetic
excellence. Thus, a better violin and it's player, taken as a unitary field of
patterns is more precisely described in MOQ terms than saying, "this is better
Quality."
You have missed the point Dan.
All the best,
Mark
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 : Sat Jul 31 2004 - 01:54:35 BST