Hi Matt, Matt: A.'I think one of the most important parts of Pirsig's description of Dynamic Quality is that its unexpected.' B. '...when you say I'm "satisfied." That is a perfect description. I am satisfied with the line of thinking, with the repertoire I have to deal with situations, I am in equilibrium, coherent.'
Mark: 1. One may dispense with DQ altogether and still acknowledge that the unexpected may happen. A. in conjunction with B. reduces DQ to fatalism; the equilibria of: 'What will be will be regardless of what i do or do not do.' This provides a description of coherence as stasis. I do not advocate this description: The Dynamic pragmatist has two complimentary aspects: a. The static repertoire is a static aspect of Dynamic behaviour. b. The Dynamic aspect of Dynamic behaviour itself are functions of manipulation: anticipation, problem solving. Coherence is concerned with the relationship between these complimentary aspects. 2. Therefore, coherence may be an index of Dynamic behaviour? By 2. it may be seen that coherence is a matter of intensity. (For this reason i have suggested talk of coherence may be better than talk of simply the Dynamic - 'Dynamic' is an absolute term; coherence may increase or decrease in intensity.) 3. This may lead to the suggestion that all knowledge may be of some value for the repertoire? c. A negative argument: trivial knowledge is, by definition, of no use. d. A positive argument: Poetry is not trivial knowledge. The suggestion that poetry is itself a microcosm of coherence: a lesson in intellectual coherence displaying some of the greatest human art ever created; a panoply of rich metaphors of universal application may support 3d. 4. By 2. and 3d. poetry is a valid inclusion for the static repertoire. 5. 4. contributes to the intensity of your coherence as a thinker. 6. DQ is a teleological goal of moral evolution and not fatalism. 7. Coherence aims at DQ. 8. Therefore, Dynamic behaviour is an end in itself and a moral pursuit according to the moq. Matt: C. '...if you accept everything I just said, my defense of my belief that I _am_, as you called it, a "Dynamic pragmatist," it leaves us in more-agreement-than-previously-thought-imaginable still.' Mark: Your definition of a Dynamic pragmatist is: 'Satisfied to be a fatalist.' My definition of a Dynamic pragmatist is: 'A moral pursuit.' That is if you accept everything i just said. Love, Mark P.S. Ian Glendenning is aware of my forthcoming talk to the University of Liverpool's Interdisciplinary forum (IDF). After receiving the invitation (as all MA students do) i decided to talk about the moq. But how to use the moq in the talk? I decided to call my abstract: 'The moq and the unity of disciplines.' If you visit the IDF webpage, you will be able to examine a list of previous presentations. Among those listed are presentations on engineering, philosophy, poetry, languages, mathematics, etc. It is my intention to suggest the moq provides a unifying metaphysics for all disciplines. 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
