> [Arlo] > Rather, we get people who have latched onto this rather literally and are > using it to justify two 'competing' views rather than understanding their > symbiotic and synthetic co-occurence as, I think, both Pirsig and Northrop > would've hoped.
[djh] Do you honestly think Marsha prefers two 'competing' views? I don't think so. Case in point is her definition of static patterns including the description 'ever-changing'. With such a definition what Marsha thinks she has done is capture DQ in her definition of static quality. In other words - Marsha is more symbiosis than competition. You'd be right that by thinking she has captured DQ in her definition of sq, that she has inadvertently destroyed the quality of Context two and relegated herself to an ugly Context one - but from her perspective she has already combined the two contexts into her understanding of the MOQ. In other words - what Marsha fails to appreciate is the *difference* between the two contexts. They are two very different perspectives and require different values and assumptions. I don't think Marsha sees this at all - dismissing the ugliness of static quality from her perspective as SOM and thus neglects the intellectual values of precision, clarity an d the assumption that things exist before we experience them. 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
