[Krimel] It is my position that if properly applied the MoQ is a first step in providing a metaphysical unpinning to modern science. It should aspire to become what Pirsig said it would be: a metaphysics of randomness.
Dynamic Quality (which I vigorously maintain is not to be identified with Quality, regardless of whether or not Pirsig agrees to their conflation) is recognized in the degree of inconsistency within and among static patterns. Ron: Could you expand on this? Do you mean that the term simply serves to confuse Rather than explain? [Krimel] Pirsig dealt with Quality, defining it as The Tao in ZMM. In Lila he uses the terms Quality and Dynamic Quality more or less interchangeably. In a letter to, I think Paul Turner, he more or less offhandedly codified the conflation. I think this is a huge mistake. Quality is undefined but we know it when we see it. It is The Way, the path we are on. DQ and SQ are what we see. They are how we recognize The Way, in terms of what is constant and static (SQ) and what is active and changing (DQ). DQ and SQ are aspects or properties of Quality. Quality is no more one than the other. [Ron] I think Because the intellectual level involves the experience of the individual. [Krimel] Individuals also experience society. This experience of society is largely mediated by the individual's biology which is dependant primarily on conditions in the inorganic. The inner world that each of us inhabits is constructed of all four levels if we insist on adopting this particular taxonomy. We partake of and contribute to each level. [Ron] How the heck have you been? Are you teaching Quality? (said with an ironic smirk) [Krimel] I've been better... Not teaching at the moment but hope to return to it in the summer. 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/
