Hi David
My point - as Steve has already posted - was in relation to free will
and choice etc.
So choosing another's creation (a piece of recorded music) is choosing a
pre-existing pattern - i.e. static pov - and is not following DQ in the
sense that I was referring to.
Choosing high quality instances of art, even if of the highest quality,
is still choosing SQ. Creating your own art is following or choosing DQ.
So I don't see how Pirsigs example is incorrect in this context as it
refers to an entirely different context and analogy.
Horse
On 03/08/2011 19:05, David Thomas wrote:
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
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
