[MD] Chance

[Ron Kulp]

[Ron]
> Dynamic quality has meaning only in reference to static
> quality and their context of reference.


Craig:
Pirsig's view is that DQ precedes SQ, that SQ is the
latching of DQ.  However, without SQ there would be
nothing to contrast DQ to. 

Ron:
I think this is the part where Pirsig makes a wrong turn.
Speaking generally about abstract terms in a precise manner.
I think it works well when speaking of specifics. Ie.
Democracy was a dynamic pattern that statically latched.
Rather than DQ becomes SQ via static latching. Which is
Almost in the same realm as Hams Essence. We have no way 
of knowing and extends into conjecture. It conjures up
a whole host of extending questions, what makes DQ latch?
Why does it latch, how does it latch,... it spirals
Out of control. When he really doesn't need to address 
this aspect at all. In fact all it does is create an Achilles
heel.
It reeks of the same fallacy that SOM fell to, the conflagration
Of terms with reality itself and is counterproductive to
The concept that MoQ is an intellectual pattern.