DMB, Great post! It reminds me that I should try to listen to the Dewey book again.
Marsha At 03:33 PM 2/15/2008, you wrote: >Ham said: >This may be a silly question, and I know it's been discussed before, >but I have always been confused about Pirsig's use of "static" for >S/O patterns and "dynamic" for the Quality that supports them. And >I suspect that I'm not alone in this confusion. I've been told that >DQ is dynamic because it gives rise to patterns (or at least >encompasses them), but that doesn't seem to properly describe the >unchanging foundational Quality, or the fact that most patterns are >experienced as changing or evolving in some away. > >Steve replied: >This is an interesting question. I don't think we should make too >much of dynamic/static as changing versus staying the same. I think >that in the phrase "static patterns of value" static is redundant, >static just means patterned as in "analogues upon analogues." >Dynamic means unpatterned but to just say that could confuse it with >chaos. Dynamic quality isn't chaos but rather pure experience >unfiltered through a web of analogues. > >dmb says: >It might help to look at the difference between Ham's unchanging >foundation and Steve's unfiltered experience. I think Ham's >confusion is a consequence of trying to understand Dynamic Quality >as some kind of foundational reality, as something that exists on >its own apart from experience, as if DQ were a simple substitute for >SOM's objective reality or Kant's things-in-themselves. But in the >MOQ, experience IS reality and the terms "static" and "dynamic" both >characterize experience. William James also used these terms to >characterize experience. As he put it, experience is like the >movements of a bird, full of flights and perchings. Dewey's work in >art and aesthetics gets at this idea pretty well too. All three of >these guys (Pirsig, James and Dewey) are radical empiricists and >they're all looking closely and critically at SOM. It's no good >trying to understand static and dynamic without first understanding that. > >Dewey's distinction between recognition and perception might be >helpful here. For Dewey, "recognition" is something like static >quality and "perception" is dynamic. "The difference between the two >is immense", he says in his ART AS EXPERIENCE. "Recognition is >perception arrested before it has a chance to develop freely." "In >recognition we fall back as upon a stereotype, upon some previously >formed scheme. Some detail or arrangement of details serves as cue >for bare identification. It suffices in recognition to apply this >bare outline as a stencil to the present object". "Bare recognition >is satisfied when a proper tag or label is attached, 'proper' >signifying one that serves a purpose outside the act of recognition >- as a salesman identifies wares by a sample." Sadly, says Dewey, >these "non-esthetic" kinds of experience are so common and pervasive >"that unconsciously they come to be taken as norms of all >experience. Then, when the esthetic appears, it so sharply contrasts wi > th the picture that has been formed of experience, that it is > impossible to combine its special qualities with the features of > the picture and the esthetic is given an outside place and status." > >Its worth pointing out that for Dewey the aesthetic experience is >not confined to the fine arts. He talks about the aesthetic >experience of a thinker and a moral actor, for example. Just as in >the MOQ, any kind of experience could count as dynamic - hearing a >new song, formulating a hypothesis, fixing a bike or getting your >life turned upside down by a storm. In this case it refers to a high >degree of engagement, a heightened sensitivity to whatever is being >experienced. When "perception replaces bare recognition >...consciousness becomes fresh and alive". Dewey even uses words >like "care" and "love" to characterize the flavor and intensity of >involvement that this entails. And interestingly, he says that the >artist is guided by unifying "quality" that is neither capricious >nor routine. The artist or thinker selects and shapes her material >through the entire process on the basis this quality, by "whatever >carries the idea forward". In fact, he says, this level of engagement is > always felt as "emotional and guided by purpose". This feeling is > so inherent and integral to the aesthetic experience, says Dewey, > that "there is, therefore, no such thing in perception as seeing or > hearing PLUS emotion". He's careful to spell out that this is not > "emotion" in the conventional sense. I think he's talking about > what Pirsig would call "quality" or "value". As Dewey points out, > the dynamic has given it "an outside place and status". So we > hardly know what to call it or how to talk about it. But these guys > put it at the center of things, despite our culture's blind spot to it. > >Thanks, >dmb > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. >http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 >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/ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
