All,
Marsha:
Static quality is not other than Dynamic Quality; Dynamic Quality is not other
than static quality.
Tuukka:
In addition, static quality is not the same as DQ, and DQ is not the same as sq.
Marsha:
Dan, maybe this is RMP's notion of balance; to know sq/DQ as the same.
Tuukka:
What a confusing thing to say!
Dan:
"But once the deļ¬nitions emerge, they are static patterns and no
longer apply to Dynamic Quality." [RMP]
So if static quality and Dynamic Quality are known as the same, why
does Robert Pirsig say once definitions emerge they do not apply to
Dynamic Quality? If they were known as the same, wouldn't the opposite
be said to be true?
Tuukka:
DQ can be defined, but the definition is useless for traditional logical
purposes. See:
http://www.todellisuudenomistaja.net/suhteutuvuus-ja-sen-seurauksia/#comment-802
Dynamic Quality is, technically, a nonrelativizably used predicate. The
worst case scenario for using such predicates is that any statement,
whose truth value is contingent with regards to the truth value of a
nonrelativizably used predicate, is equivalent to a contradiction. And
no, I don't care whether anyone understands that previous sentence.
People complain to me about all kinds of things.
From a rather narrow logical point of view, the best case scenario for
using predicates nonrelativizably, is that we eventually manage to
relativize them in a new and innovative way.
-Tuukka
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
