First of all, let me say thank you, thank you, thank you to everyone who took the time to read my "relation of art and morality" paper. And that goes double for the kind words.
Krimel said: ...I do have a question about how you equate Dewey's stability and flux with Pirsig's static and dynamic. I am not familiar with Dewey's usage but doesn't this run a bit counter to Pirsig's confusion of DQ and Quality? Does this leave the door open to the recognition that DQ is not indefinable in the least and can in fact be characterized in terms of change and rates of change? dmb replies: I don't understand the first question. Does Pirsig confuse DQ and Quality and how so? If you're talking about the difference between ZAMM and LILA, I think the MOQ consists in both and the former is revised by the latter, especially on this point. As I understand it, Quality includes both static and dynamic, neither of which can exist without the other. (Q=sq+DQ) Static quality and dynamic quality, together, are identical to Quality. Dewey's terms "stability and flux" or James earlier terms "perching and flights" are parallel with static and dynamic, obviously, but I'd guess Dewey's name for both of them together would be "situation". I don't know it that helps explain why I don't understand the question but at least you can see how I'm using the terms. I think I understand the second question, even if I don't understand how the door was opened to it. If we can rightly characterize DQ "in terms of change and rates of change", then it IS definable. Okay, granted. But I don't think we can rightly equate DQ with change. While words like "novelty" and "change" can be used it is also true that some "change" is almost entirely static. Take radioactive decay or the face of a properly functioning clock, for example. In that case, the "rate of change" is calculable, predictable and steady. Or, to take a sociological example that can more easily be related to paper, we can roughly predict the number of strip-malls that will be built next year. They'll all be shiny and new but there is nothing dynamic about that. They'll just sell the same old crap to the same old people in the same old way. There will be change in some sense, but its not dynamic so much as a further perpetuation of the static. There is more construction and more traffic but these are static changes. The truly dynamic and truly novel is not something that can be foreseen or predicted in this way. This is certainly one of the central reasons we say its not definable. I mean, by definition we can't say in advance what these "unforeseen changes" will be like. I mean, true novelty is more than just a fresh batch of the same old or the same old with a cherry on top. And there is also the epistemological claim about DQ being pre-intellectual and therefore prior to definitions, but that's almost another topic. _________________________________________________________________ Instantly invite friends from Facebook and other social networks to join you on Windows Live™ Messenger. https://www.invite2messenger.net/im/?source=TXT_EML_WLH_InviteFriends 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/
