Martin Striz (striz@ezwv.com)
Thu, 4 Jun 1998 17:28:41 +0100
Hey LS!
Dynamic and Static are the two fundamental "kinds" of values we
encounter. The difference is in their familiarity to us. I'm going to
go on a little epistemological diatribe, then I'll come back and
critique Pirsig's heirarchy of Values.
Whenever I think of the Dynamic/Static split, I always go back to a
temporal-based explanation of perception. Reality exists as a
collection of mixed and uncut values that are unknown. They are part of
that undefined Zen state -- a time before perception. Along comes the
observer, who is himself a collection of values, with his "chattering
mind," and the Values confront him. They are sometimes met with awe and
wonder, often times with happiness and surprise, usually with a sense of
freshness, a feel of newness, a stretching of the mental muscles and a
sigh of relief from the day-to-day world we've been a part of for so
long.
After some time the "chattering mind" starts to dissect them. It's what
"thinking" is all about (the product of millions of years of evolution).
You can't possible handle all the Values that confront you every day,
all the time, so you have to do some on-the-spot housecleaning.
Categorize the values you see into "things," "objects," "relationships,"
"acts," and so forth. Recognize them and recall them from memory when
necessary.
YOU have created the static world. The world of unchanging objects and
day-to-day monotony. If it wasn't for you and the brain that can
remember, then every morning when you woke up you would have to go
through the same process.....like a baby you would look in amazement at
the world before you. And what an amazing world it IS! But we often
forget, because we've cut it, defined it, and put it away into neat
little packages.
In PRINCIPLE, Dynamic Quality is all that exists. We live in a sea of
dynamic values. But PRAGMATICALLY, the static world we've defined is
just as real as anything else, it's the world we must confront most of
the time.
More technically, Dynamic Quality is an ontological reality while Static
Quality is an epistemological reality. They are interrelated through
time and by perception and reason.
--------------
Now my critique of Static Quality. It seems to me that Pirsig's theory
of the static world is a bit incomplete. For one thing, he tells us
that the evolution of values has been one that goes from low dynamics to
high dynamics, from low freedom to high freedom....from the causal and
unbreakable laws of the universe to the almost undefinable inner
workings of the psyche. However, quantum mechanics remains a paradox in
this worldview. It is more basic than protons and strong nuclear
forces, and in some ways they are built upon the quantum level, but it
remains strangely much more dynamic.
Another conundrum is the relationship of Dynamic Quality with Static
Quality. Pirsig tells us that DQ "leads" static quality along. Both
the teleologists and anti-teleologists are accomodated because DQ can be
considered a "purpose," but as to what that purpose is, we can never
know because it is undefinable. Perhaps I simply don't understand
Pirsig that well, but if the difference between Dynamic Quality and
static quality is one of perception and invention, then there doesn't
exist a relationship of "leading along." While it is true that values
have become more abstract and "free" in one sense (societies and
intellects), the evolution of life has been one of increasing order, the
production of technology has been more and more complex, and the
quantum-to-atom conundrum crops back up to haunt us.
Dynamic Quality can be considered the "leading edge" in so far as it is
considered Nowness: the moment of perception. However, it doesn't seem
likely that Dynamic Quality is a "different realm" that spews forth
values to us in a set manner and determines a particular direction of
evolution. I don't consider it to be another dimension that throws
values into our dimension and makes sure they are progressively more
free. To me it is THIS reality, the only one, but at an unperceived
state (or more precisely, at the edge of perception).
Perhaps if you don't agree I'll have to call it Strizian Metaphysics.
:-)
Cheers,
Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST