Hi Ham, I think that you are confusing the term dynamic for Dynamic Quality. While we agree that the word dynamic confuses things when applied to the MOQ, our conclusions are vastly different it would seem.
Pirsig has said that the term dynamic in 'Dynamic Quality' can be confused with 'movement' but that is not what Dynamic Quality is. Dynamic Quality isn't anything at all, including movement. > As an essentialist, of course, I see the terminology as a fundamental > misconception of metaphysical reality. The problem I have with "Dynamic > Quality" is that it is "unfinished" -- that it continues indefinitely along > some cosmic path to "betterness" which we associate with evolution. Who or what doesn't like something that is better? You obviously don't like something about the MOQ. I'll bet you want something better. ;-) > And it straps Quality to the space/time dimensions of a universe in process. > I think this is what Mark was getting at when he suggested that Evolution > shouldn't be used to connote Quality. Here is where you have confused Dynamic Quality with movement. If Dynamic Quality is movement then yes, it would have a space time location. However Dynamic Quality is not movement. It isn't any thing at all. > Beginnings and endings are a phenomenon of the "cause-and-effect" world where > meaning is found in the existential (alpha to omega) progression between > these two boundaries. But there is no metaphysical reason to assume that the > modus operandi of the ultimate source is process in time. The spiritual > cultures that predated philosophy must have understood this, as religious > people have traditionally characterized their God as "eternal" and > "unchanging'. These are synonyms for quality. Ancient Cultures didn't have Pirsig's 20th Century insight to break quality into both defined and undefined. > But if you are persuaded that ultimate Quality streams to betterness in its > creation of lingering patterns, who am I to fault this belief? I'm not sure what you're saying here. It would seem your interpretation of ordinary MOQ is strange? > Inasmuch as the principles of metaphysics are incapable of empirical > verification, one analogy will be regarded as good as another. All metaphysical ideas are capable of empirical verification. Your trying them on right now. Are they any good? 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
