On 8/3/11 12:07 PM, "Steven Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi David, > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:12 AM, David Thomas > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 8/3/11 8:14 AM, "Horse" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> If we choose not to >>> prefer an existing pattern and instead opt for a new pattern of our own >>> creation then we are following DQ. Opting for another's creation is >>> certainly not following DQ. >> >> Dave, >> Remember the passage about hearing a new song on the radio being indicative >> of DQ? >> Doesn't that put the kibosh on your last statement? Or was RMP was mistaken? >> Oh I know, it's only an analogy. > > Steve: > I didn't take that to be what Horse was saying. With respect to > listening to music, it is more like the absurdity of deciding whether > to play song A over song B on your iPod at a given moment because song > A is somehow the more _dynamic_ and therefore _free_ option. > Horse > Recognising the Quality in what someone else has created and adopting it > as your own are two completely different animals. > So no, I would consider my statement correct and unkiboshed! Dave I was referring to this: -------------- Lila -Pg 57 He found an example within the field of music. He said, imagine that you walk down a street past, say, a car where someone has the radio on and it plays a tune you've never heard before but which is so fantastically good it just stops you in your tracks. You listen until it's done. Days later you remember exactly what that street looked like when you heard that music. .... same kind of division between Dynamic Quality and static quality that exists in the field of morals also exists in the field of art. The first good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of surprise. What the record did was weaken for a moment your existing static patterns in such a way that the Dynamic Quality all around you shone through. It was free, without static forms. The second good, the kind that made you want to recommend it to a friend, even when you had lost your own enthusiasm for it, is static quality. Static quality is what you normally expect. ------------- Steve recently equated DQ to someone "groov'n on the drums" and this seems to square with Horse's take. But as you both can see in this quote that is not what Pirsig said.. We all know that long before anybody heard that recorded (and therefore completely static) song on the radio it went through a long chain of "static" steps (writing,recording,distribution,playing, to name just a few) from the original dynamic creation by the artist just groov'n on the drums. So your take, Horse may well be unkiboshed, but it is also unPirsiged. Or Pirsig is inconsistent in his analogies. Which was my point. 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
