Ron concerning the Brujo koan:
> He aligned intellectual patterns with dynamic quality.
>
> Now I'm going to attack how you are using the quote of static patterns
> change in response to dynamic quality. It is a cause and effect relationship
> you seem to be placing on the meaning that tends to be anchored in
> objective suppositions. In the inerest of clarity, is this what you mean when
> you use the term?
Dan:
No. The MOQ doesn't subscribe to cause and effect relationships.
Perhaps this quote will help clarify what I mean:
"The tribal frame of values that condemned the brujo and led to his
punishment was one kind of good, for which Phaedrus coined the term
"static good." Each culture has its own pattern of static good derived
from fixed laws and the traditions and values that underlie them. This
pattern of static good is the essential structure of the culture
itself and defines it. In the static sense the brujo was very clearly
evil to oppose the appointed authorities of his tribe. Suppose
everyone did that? The whole Zuni culture, after thousands of years of
continuous survival, would collapse into chaos.
"But in addition there's a Dynamic good that is outside of any
culture, that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has
to be continually rediscovered as a culture evolves. Good and evil are
not entirely a matter of tribal custom. If they were, no tribal change
would be possible, since custom cannot change custom. There has to be
another source of good and evil outside the tribal customs that
produces the tribal change." [LILA}
Dan comments:
Note the sentence: "since custom cannot change custom" and replace
custom with static quality pattern, then you will perhaps see what the
MOQ is saying. Dynamic Quality "cannot be contained by any system of
percepts." Any attempt to describe "it" is an intellectual pattern of
quality.
Ron:
Note the idea that static and dynamic are competing forms of good
without static Quality patterns, things would fall into chaos
Which implies that to exist, to "be" is to be static to some degree.
I believe most would argue that it is better to "be" than not.
It would seem that DQ being better than SQ is a matter of context.
This is what I was getting at with the 1961 paper to Edith Buchanan.
Can the good be taught? If it can, should it be?
The old Protagoras dialog. Pirsig answers that Quality can and should
be taught in his paper on teaching Quality in writing.
But you brought up the "Fat man in the fridge" quote.
linked with the idea that it's immoral to write about it,
But, in the end, he decides to do it anyway because he feels
that it is better to do so than to not.
It is better to try to define quality than to not.
Dan:
That's why we cannot say anything about Dynamic Quality. Not on
account of jepordizing our position, but anything we say will be not
this, not that.
Ron:
Thats only if one neglects the good
"some things are better than others"
seems to conflict with
"Not this, not that."
and I think this is the root of our disagreement in meaning
thanks Dan
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
