Ian, Dan, Krimel, All. 24 June:
Dan originally: > > > And Dynamic Quality defined is static quality. But static quality > > > defined is not Dynamic Quality." Krim says > > "What that means is that DQ is NOT undefinable. DQ is just the opposite > > of SQ. SQ is patterns that don't change and DQ is patterns that do > > change." Ian (I guess) > No, No, No. Opposites yes, but opposites in nature too. Change / Not > change is a matter of degree - timescale. DQ is the immediate, "in the > moment" change potential. After that things get more static, defined, > fossilised. So, Dan's statement is good. It just needs a little care in > reading it. This your "angels on pinpoint" debate is what you get from not daring to call the bluff regarding the "QUALITY/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. Look: Phaedrus cuts SOM's Gordic Knot about an ineffable objective reality "out there" that we subjectively theorize about. This he replaces with the the DQ/SQ constellation and the said "objective world that we theorize about" as the static intellectual level. Perfect! But why had Pirsig to undo it all with a lightly disguised SOM in the form of an objective Quality=Reality of which the MOQ is a subjective ordering of. You can discuss this till kingdom comes without any result. Bodvar 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/md/archives.html
