[MD] The Greeks?

[John Carl]

Mary,

So I'm reading along, and all of a sudden I'm getting a funny feeling in the
pit of my Stomache.  A terrible, sinking feeling that's sounding off all
kinds of ringing alarms...

On Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Mary <marysonthego at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> The choice we do have is in how we interpret the Static Quality once
> experienced.  It is this cut that Pirsig says we have a choice about, and
> it
> is necessary in Pirsig's Universe to realize a couple of things and hold
> these concepts simultaneously and at all times.  First, that Static Quality
> is not an absolute, and second, that DQ underlies all.


The alarms are ringing because I agree completely.  You're making so much
sense it doesn't seem right.


>  If you are not privy
> to the concept of Dynamic Quality, it would be difficult to discern the
> ephemeral nature of Static Quality.  Without an acknowledgement of an
> underlying DQ, one would be tempted to just punt and say that the Static
> Quality you see _is_ reality.


That sounds really good to me.  Even though  I do think of all Reality as
Static Quality,  I don't think of Static Quality as all of Reality.  Does
that make sense to you?  Because the way you're saying it makes a lot of
sense to me.



>  But if you do that, you are locked into a
> world where SQ is divided as subjects but mostly (quantity-wise) as
> objects.
> Now I've given this a fair amount of thought, but I cannot come up with
> anything else SQ (temporal reality) could logically be if the concept of
> underlying DQ is absent.  If you have, I'd be seriously delighted to hear
> about it.
>
>
Makes sense to me in the sense they're intertwined and interdependent.  But
the most important realization is one you share - the one about the
conceptualization of DQ as necessary for proper conceptualization of SQ... I
was thinking along those lines myself just earlier and it's a delight to
find a congruent formulation in your own words, concording with my
thoughts...  See?  That's Quality!




>   We have no
> choice in the Pirsigian Universe about Static versus Dynamic Quality.



The dynamicism isn't an object of choosing, it's the process of choosing.
 So .. Yup.  I agree.




> [Mary Replies]
> Yes.  Nothing is more important than being able to "sell" your position to
> your audience.  If you fail to do so, it does not matter that you have in
> actuality "won" the logical joust.  Logos, ethos, pathos.  All are in play
> and must be used skillfully.
>
>
Well Mary, you got my vote.

An important point to keep in mind, tho, is that in the truly socratic
dialogue, there are no losers.  We all gain from the value of other opinions
and views, and the synthesized out of many is the best formulation of all.

I can hear Platt cringing over the collective's opinion, but see, that's
what makes him such a valuable individual!

 Take Care,

John the late