[MD] On Balance: Dewey, Pirsig and Granger

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Marsha]
Like you, there is much sq I really like.  I don't like the word 'balance'.  I
don't.  I don't.  If you drop the word balance, I'll sing you 'My Favorite
Things' from The Sound of Music.

[Arlo]
Well I've heard "harmony" suggested. And there is Mark's "coherence". And "sweet
spot". Maybe "balance" has a connotation for you it does not for me. In a
previous post I got the idea that you took "balance" to equate to "equal
portions", and I want to make it clear that this is not what I mean by
"balance". I also do not mean it to be "equilibrium", as this implies to me a
system "at rest" (all SQ, "finished", to use Dewey's wording). 

[Marsha]
Funny, I think the norm is quite the opposite.  I think that, in fact, sq gets
privileged over DQ.  The sq is placed on a high alter in the form of me, myself
and I, and my opinions.

[Arlo]
Interesting. Well, suffice it to say that I don't think either should be
priveleged over the other, because it is in their relationship that immediate
esthetic experience is possible. And, if I can be bold, Marsha, I think it is
in this, the immediate esthetic experience we are both equally "for". No?

[Marsha]
So can we say that within the MOQ, DQ is major driving force, and experiencing
the interaction between DQ and sq is the major process?

[Arlo]
I'd say, within the MOQ, DQ is the force of movement and SQ is the force of
rest, and evolutionary movement occurs through their interaction. 

[Arlo previously]
The MOQ, as I understand it, demonstrates an evolutionary relationship between
"static" and "Dynamic" qualities, and it is _because of_ this co-relationship
that evolution is possible.

[Marsha]
I totally agree with this statement.  And I don't see the word balance.

[Arlo]
I think "balance" is implied in the nature of the co-relationship. Too much DQ
or too much DQ and evolution is not possible.