Hi David --
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 8:43 AM "David Harding" <[email protected]>
wrote:
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.
Anthony McWatt, who is regarded here as the "official interpreter" of
Pirsig's MoQ, explains Dynamic Quality thusly:
"Dynamic Quality is the term given by Pirsig to the continually changing
flux of immediate reality while static quality refers to any concept
abstracted from this flux. Pirsig equates Dynamic Quality with F.S.C.
Northrop's 'indeterminate aesthetic continuum' which refers to the divine in
experience and can only be understood properly through direct apprehension.
Hence the use of the term "dynamic" which indicates something not fixed or
determinate." --[A. McWatt: 'Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality']
Now a "continually changing flux" that is "not fixed" and is also described
as an "aesthetic continuum" indicates motion or progession to me, especially
as it relates to four levels of an evolutinary heirarchy. So I don't know
why you think my "interpretation of ordinary MOQ is strange." How do YOU
interpret it?
[Ham, previously]:
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.
...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'.
[David]:
These are synonyms for quality. Ancient Cultures didn't have Pirsig's
20th Century insight to break quality into both defined and undefined.
They ancients weren't talking about "quality"; they were describing an
immutable deity. Since empirical reality is "defined", perhaps "undefined"
would be a more suitable label for what Pirsig confusingly calls "Dynamic
Quality".
All metaphysical ideas are capable of empirical verification.
You're trying them on right now. Are they any good?
I don't know whose metaphysical ideas you have in mind, but empirical
verification cannot be applied to concepts that transcend the physical
(i.e., experiential) world. Nor do I make such a claim for the tenets of
Essentialism.
In short, David, you haven't convinced me that anything I said is wrong.
But thanks anyway,
Ham
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
