Ron previously: The counter argument I make
1: Choice is reality, every last bit 2. Dynamic Quality is natural selection at work 3.Dynamic Quality is best understood as "betterness" to which Andre responded: I really think a Zen Buddhist will laugh at this...and perhaps Pirsig as well. Ron in response: Perhaps Andre perhaps, But I believe the master as well as Bob would agree. For arguements sake, lets see what the consequences are to take Quality as each were to be true. Andre now: Hi Ron and apologies for the late reply. Since Dan (by quoting Pirsig) has already commented on 1 and 2 (needless to say I agree with Dan) I'll respond to 3. I am reluctant to 'understand' DQ as 'betterness'. For me, DQ simply is. Contextualised however within the framework of the MOQ we can see that Pirsig develops the notion of DQ as (unconceptualised) freedom and sq as (conceptualised) order. Cosmological evolution appears to be the result of DQ to move away from, to escape 'the bondage of matter and gain freedom in an increasingly coherent cosmos'. This leads Anthony to observe that DQ 'can be perceived as continually attracting the static patterns... 'towards a further and greater ordered coherence...though this is not pre-ordained and this freedom remains undefined'. (from Anthony's PhD, p 75). If DQ 'furthers' static notions of freedom, coherence, harmony then indeed, from a static point of view it can be regarded as 'betterness'. But I remain reluctant to then 'understand DQ AS betterness. I mean, some evolutionary processes are better than others... .(Pirsig, AHP tapes) Am I making sense Ron or am I making it unnecessarily difficult for you (and myself)? 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
