[Ron] > Dynamic quality has meaning only in reference to static > quality and their context of reference.
Craig: Pirsig's view is that DQ precedes SQ, that SQ is the latching of DQ. However, without SQ there would be nothing to contrast DQ to. Ron: I think this is the part where Pirsig makes a wrong turn. Speaking generally about abstract terms in a precise manner. I think it works well when speaking of specifics. Ie. Democracy was a dynamic pattern that statically latched. Rather than DQ becomes SQ via static latching. Which is Almost in the same realm as Hams Essence. We have no way of knowing and extends into conjecture. It conjures up a whole host of extending questions, what makes DQ latch? Why does it latch, how does it latch,... it spirals Out of control. When he really doesn't need to address this aspect at all. In fact all it does is create an Achilles heel. It reeks of the same fallacy that SOM fell to, the conflagration Of terms with reality itself and is counterproductive to The concept that MoQ is an intellectual pattern. 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/
