[MD] DQ: to define or undefine

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian, Dan, Krimel, All.  

24 June:

Dan originally:
> > > And Dynamic Quality defined is static quality. But static quality
> > > defined is not Dynamic Quality." 

Krim says 
> > "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 (I guess)
> No, No, No. Opposites yes, but opposites in nature too. Change / Not
> change is a matter of degree - timescale. DQ is the immediate, "in the
> moment" change potential. After that things get more static, defined,
> fossilised. So, Dan's statement is good. It just needs a little care in
> reading it. 

This your "angels on pinpoint" debate is what you get from not daring 
to call the bluff regarding the "QUALITY/MOQ" meta-metaphysics. 
Look: Phaedrus cuts SOM's Gordic Knot about an ineffable objective 
reality "out there" that we subjectively theorize about. This he replaces 
with the the DQ/SQ constellation and the said "objective world that we 
theorize about" as the static intellectual level. Perfect! But why had 
Pirsig to undo it all with a lightly disguised SOM in the form of an 
objective Quality=Reality of which the MOQ is a subjective ordering of.   

You can discuss this till kingdom comes without any result.

Bodvar