[MD] DQ: to define or undefine

[Ian Glendinning]

Krim
(I didn't need to re-order or re-interpret Dan's words, I quoted his
phrase verbatim "Dynamic Quality Defined is static quality".)

But yes, there is no "need" for the circularity.
The circularity is simply a "good thing" to discover however, when
people are looking for definitions, because it confirms that it's
definition is in fact "undefined". That's a good thing, it confirms
our hypothesis. To define it any other way is to turn it into sq. DQ
Defined is "NOT DQ".

(You missed my point about matters of degree .... sq is a matter of
degree, DQ isn't. I wasn't talking about complements and unions. DQ is
ONLY the immediate undefinable quality. The lifetime of sq definitions
is variable, but always relatively static for some period of time. DQ
is undefined for any period of time ever. They are qualitatively
different things.)

Ian

On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:08 PM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
> Dan said: "And Dynamic Quality defined is
> static quality. But static quality defined is not Dynamic Quality."
>
> Krim said: "What that means is that DQ is NOT undefinable. DQ is just the
> opposite of SQ. SQ is patterns that don't change and DQ is patterns that do
> change."
>
> [Ian]
> No, No, No.
>
> Opposites yes, but opposites in nature too.
>
> Change / Not change is a matter of degree - timescale.
>
> [Krimel]
> Black / White is a matter of degree
> Male / Female is a matter of degree
> + /- is a matter of degree
> Certainty / Uncertainty are matters of degree
> Chaos / Order are matters of degree
>
> That degree is the union of opposites. That degree is the undefined that
> leads us to notice the relationship.
>
> Timescale is quite right though time scale is critical to the levels Pirsig
> lays out. Each of his level reflects different time scales that produce
> different modes for the workings of DQ and SQ; change and stasis.
>
> [Ian]
> DQ is the immediate, "in the moment" change potential. After that
> things get more static, defined, fossilised.
>
> [Krimel]
> SQ is equally here in the moment providing the background against which we
> measure or perceive DQ.
>
> [Ian]
> So, Dan's statement is good. It just needs a little care in reading it.
>
> "Dynamic Quality Defined is static quality" is exactly right.
>
> By Dynamic Quality Defined is NOT Dynamic Quality.
>
> [Krimel]
> This careful reading seem to require reordering and substitution and yields
> just another battered permutation of the confusion.
>
> [Ian]
> It is NOT "the definition of DQ" that DQ would recognise - it is a
> static intellectual concept. ie "the definition of DQ" is a static
> pattern, whereas DQ is DQ.
>
> [Krimel]
> But it is a "definition of DQ" that Quality could easily recognize.
> Unconceptualized Quality becomes conceptualized as DQ and SQ. These are two
> concepts that help us apprehend Quality.
>
> [Ian]
> Definition is the static part, the intellectual part, not the quality
> itself.
>
> [Krimel]
> DQ is equally conceptual and not Quality itself.
> Remember:
> Concepts are static and discrete.
> Percepts are dynamic and continuous.
>
> Concepts are derived from percepts.
>
> [Ian]
> This is only a recurring problem, because people do not believe
> (really accept) that DQ is undefined, ie by definition ;-) That
> circularity is GOOD, not a problem.
>
> [Krimel]
> And well they shouldn't. Quality is the undefined Tao. DQ and SQ are its
> aspects.
> There is no need for circularity.
>
>
>
> 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
>