Krimel said: Energy is dynamic is fields of force moving and flowing fluidlike. Matter is static, it is fields of energy compacted into stasis.
dmb says: Well, that description certainly makes sense but in the context of the MOQ it is deeply confused. Energy can be defined, quantified, measured and standardized and so it is in that sense just as static as a rock. Basically, you've confused "undefinable" with things that are in "motion". Pirsig doesn't use the term "static" to describe solid things or things at rest but rather anything with a stable meaning. In that sense, "tornados" are static and so are tornado drills. The former is a stable concept for a particular kind of weather phenomenon and the latter is that stable set of procedures we use to avoid being killed by the former. You see the difference? [Krimel] I think a big chunk of your criticism above is valid. I have attempted to deal with this many times in the past but the discussion always seems to get side tracked into SOM or reductionism or some other irrelevant red herring. While I would insist that the analogy holds it does have flaws. Motion does not directly equate with dynamic, nor does energy. You get much closer to the heart of the matter this time than I would have hoped. You say here that Pirsig claims that static means, "...anything with a stable meaning." Since I get no argument with my claim that meaning is reduction in uncertainty, I agree whole heartedly with that statement. I do think that things in flux, objects in motion do create an increase in uncertainty. But you are right it is not the whole story. You are also right that "tornado" is a static concept but I would disagree to the extent that I think "a tornado" or any particular torando is highly dynamic. While many of its qualities can be defined; its specific behaviors can not. Similarly "tornado drill" is a static concept but who is involved, the timing and the location are subject to a host of dynamic variables which insure that every tornado drill is different from every other in ways that can not be predicted. Consider a slightly different problem, for example. You are pointing out that all manner of "static" processes have "dynamic" properties. In other words it is impossible to remove dynamic quality from static quality. The reverse holds true as well. The static can not be driven from the dynamic. Mathematicians, statistician and computer geeks would all like to have a means of generating pure random numbers. Thus far the effort has proven futile. Although we can generate random number in a variety of ways that serve a variety of purposes, all of them show some form of bias or another. What Pirsig says is that Quality is like the Tao and SQ and DQ are opposites that reveal an understanding of that underling unity. It is never one or the other in isolation but always a mixture of both. I think this can be stated more simply as: Order is a subset of Chaos. 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/
