Hi Matt,
Pirsig:
Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take
whatever is said and make a static pattern out of it and then
dialectically oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question,
“What is Dynamic Quality?” is the ancient Vedic one—“Not this, not
that.”
Steve:
Given this RMP statement (and all that talk about Quality being
undefined), dmb's objections are just the sort of objections we can
_always_ make to what _anyone_ says about DQ. The only way to avoid
such objections is to shut the hell up about DQ, but then of course
dmb objects to not talking about DQ as well. But it is just absurd
from the start for dmb to claim that he has properly grasped something
in the name of DQ that you and I have missed given that "DQ" is (among
other Pirsigian usages of the term) a placeholder for what is lost as
soon as you think you have grasped it.
Ron:
DQ can also be explained as the Good, which is no-thing/all-things and
express a motivating factor as to why aestetic preference composes all
experience.
Linking it to the concept of a reality/experience of moral values.
I think that is missed in a purely "not this/not that" explanation which to
myself
leans to a more relativistic version of DQ.
It's what the majority of the arguement has been about, the idea of DQ being a
place holder
for the indefineable AND an explanation of the Good and the beautiful.
Its why DQ is moraly superior to SQ (by way of static explanation.)
Lending explanitory meaning to term rather than a place holder for
nothing-ness.
..
..
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
