[MD] Aristotle & DQ

[Ham Priday]

Hi Jos [David mentioned]--


[On 7/22 Ham made this comment]:
> "What [Pirsig] wants to suggest is that Dynamic Quality is the
> SOURCE of Change.  But there is no equivalent definition for
> Static Quality as a "source" or "fulfillment" of DQ, and such
> a notion is illogical and empirically untrue"

Jos:
> Can you explain this criticism a little further please,
> my feeling is that you're critisising a mis-statement of Pirsig.
> Can you convince me otherwise?

Probably not, because your favorite author sees existents (natural 
phenomena) as fixed "patterns" that are made "dynamic" by DQ.  Obviously, I 
do not share this view.  He also does not acknowledge an immutable Source 
(Creator, or prime mover), which I do.  The cause or source of what David 
calls 'dynamei' is itself "static" in that it is absolute and unchanging. 
That's why I said that to attribute dynamism to Essence is a perversion of 
metaphysics.

I also said:
> Negation is the beginning of number, difference, process and modality,
> none of which is integral to the absolute source.

Evolution is a process which can be defined as the incremental change of 
nature or mankind
as perceived in time and space.  As such it is dynamic, that is, subject to 
the physical laws and conditions of existential reality (also, incidentally, 
defined by man).  To impute the limitations of .  finitude on the infinite 
source is to deny that reality is anything but "the way we experience it", 
or that there is any such thing as reality beyond the physical world. 
Perhaps that explains why Pirsig refused to support his thesis with a 
metaphysical ontology.  Had he done so, he would have had to either refute 
or affirm an uncreated source, in either case offending his acolytes.

In common parlance, that which changes or is in in transition is "dynamic". 
That which is constant and immutable is "static".  Poetic metaphors and 
euphemisims not accepted.

Does this at least convince you of the logic of my position?

Regards,
Ham