[MD] The Greeks?

[X Acto]

>
> Krimel said:
> I see Wilson as much more like Pirsig than the other two.
> He emphasized culture as a biological strategy that grows
> "out of" biological systems. But then the idea of levels as
> discrete and in competition with each other has always
> seemed bogus to me. I think one level grows out of another
> when the lower level provides enough static quality for a
> new level of DQ to operate. In fact in this sense I would
> say SQ is a much higher level of betterness or whatever
> than DQ.
>
>
John said:
Man, that is weird.  I keep coming round to this conflict and I'm always on
the side of DQ and the enemy is always on that side you describe, Krimel.
Worshippers of SQ.  Idolators.

Ron:
Trick is, not to worship. trick is, not to elevate the dynamic to an absolute
idea of good. Trick is finding which static forms to value. One may value
an ideal of the dynamic, which then is a static good but it still is dealing
with a very broad, the broadest static value, the one which all other values spring from
and that is the act of valuing itself, the form of making value judgements, the act
of the good. The act of the good, is the first static quality. It is a dynamic concept
because it is defined as an act, no particular act, but the act of acting.
The process of making distinctions in experience.
Krimel, like Plato's "Parmenides" makes the point that form, the form of the 
good in particular is the basis on which all knowledge is concieved, Pirsig
adds, "all experience"  so I would'nt just lump what he is saying into an
arguement of SQ bad, DQ good.. cause thats pretty rigid..having
said that.