I start by quoting from a Digest written by Steve
Peterson in this Thread on Jan 10th:
"Here are some of Pirsig's descriptions of Dynamic
Quality...
The undefined ?better?
the origin of all things
the continuing stimulus which causes us to create the
world in which
we live
the response of an organism to its environment
the sense of harmony of the cosmos
Big Self
the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality
the source of all things, completely simple and always
new
The generalized "something" that compels the baby's
attention
Whitehead's "dim apprehension"
the Quality of freedom
those seemingly trivial, unimportant, "spur of the
moment" decisions
that directed the progress of evolution
the value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical
solution to a laborious one
or, a brilliant experiment over a confusing,
inconclusive one
the base of reality
Vast emptiness and nothing sacred."
End of quote
=====
In my opinion this is a most remarkable contribution
from Steven. Remarkable in the sense that it suggests
a novel methodology for a better understanding of DQ.
This is the way I see it, and I ask for your
patience because it will take long:
If someone poses the question What is DQ? we
cannot answer with a definition; (everyone seems to
agree here at least in that). Since we agree in "no
definitions" of DQ, the next alternative seems to be
to convey to the questioner our personal meaning of
DQ. I assume that most of you has a very clear idea of
what DQ might be. The problem with personal meanings
is that when we attempt to externalize them,
especially in writing, they look suspiciously alike
lexical definitions and then we start arguing about
the pros or cons of this or that meaning;( as applied
to complex notions, usually a fruitless venue)
What Steve is proposing (if I read him
correctly) is to take an alternative path: instead of
attempting to answer the question What is DQ? to
examine the instances in which, according to Pirsig,
DQ 'shows up' and, through this examination, to obtain
a certain insight of what DQ might be.
(Note I'm using the somewhat crude expression "shows
up" provisionally; later on I'll propose what I think
is a better term than 'showing up' or 'description',
as used by Steven)
As a sort of analogy: confronted with the question
-- What is Art? we are in a quandary. Definitions of
Art seem to be hotly contested; lately, the idea that
better to leave Art undefined is gaining ground among
Art Historians. In the absence of a consensus
definition we could take our questioner to several
Museums and concert halls and point out to him/her
where and how Art 'shows up' (and also where it
doesn't). I'm sure that, for the questioner, the
resulting experience will be far more enlightening
than trying to apprehend a number of conventional
definitions or of personal meanings.
How could this methodology be put to work?
I must confess at the start that my notions of DQ are
extremely nebulous so, don't take me too seriously. I
would say that first step, could be to explore the
context in which the phrases quoted by Steven appear
in Pirsig's books and expand upon them. A second step
could perhaps be to add other instances (proposed by
people interested in this exercise) of where DQ "shows
up" and then to explore the question of the criteria
that could be used to accept or refute a given
instance. Yet a third step... never mind; let's see
first how to start.
More follows in next Digest
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
