[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
The demarkation of static and dynamic is not real.  As we think, all 
is dynamic.

[Arlo]
If you are saying that the Dynamic is the NOW! moment, I'd agree. I 
think Pirsig captures this when he says, "He simply meant that at the 
cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there 
must be a kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he called 
awareness of Quality. You can't be aware that you've seen a tree 
until after you've seen the tree, and between the instant of vision 
and instant of awareness there must be a time lag. We sometimes think 
of that time lag as unimportant, But there's no justification for 
thinking that the time lag is unimportant...none whatsoever." (ZMM)

I would say, however, that the artifacts of thought, intellectual 
patterns, are static patterns emanating from this event. And I would 
say there is a structuration inherent in the encoding process that 
causes the appearance of stability for certain patterns. We tend to 
think of this as "habituated", and see it as an almost bad thing, but 
these are the foundational patterns that allow persistence and evolution.

On your first note, yes, I agree, the "split" of Quality into static 
and dynamic is as much a metaphor as the "split" of reality into 
"subject" and "object". I agree with Pirsig that it provides a better 
window through which to interpret experience, but to literalize (or 
to use Marsha's favorite word "reify") this split is a mistake. This 
is why I distinguish between "Quality" (experience) and a 
"Metaphysics of Quality" (a description of that experience). I cringe 
when I hear "The MOQ is reality", because it is a description of 
reality, and all descriptions are analogies.

[Mark]
Sometimes I have a hard time differentiating between all of them.  I 
work at the interface of inorganic chemistry and biology.

[Arlo]
Actually I think the boundaries are very interesting, and not at all 
simple to define as you zoom in on them. I've called them "fractal" 
in the past, but I mean that only in the sense that that as you zoom 
in on the boundary it keeps moving away, not that it is 
mathematically precise.

[Mark]
I would say that what is termed a static social pattern should never 
dominate a dynamic biological pattern.

[Arlo]
I had the same response to this as Horse, so I am not going to 
respond here, and await your reply to him and perhaps comment further there.

[Arlo had asked]
If YOU were suddenly President of Academy University, what changes 
would you put into place.

[Mark]
The only thing that I would suggest is to remain flexible.

[Arlo]
I think now I might make this question into a thread of its own, 
because I think it is an important and rather large topic of 
discussion. I will do this later today, so for now will skip this.

[Mark]
Dogma is dangerous because it is static.

[Arlo]
Again my only comment is that, for example, non-Academic audiences of 
talk-radio can be just as dogmatic, if not more so, than those 
operating within the Academy. "Dogma" is not something exclusive to 
the Academy, and we should not confuse those outside of it as being 
ipso facto "open-minded" or non-dogmatic.

Indeed, its quite demonstrable to show how disciplines within the 
Academy evolve over time, how challenges are made and high-quality 
ideas do instantiate change and progression. Perhaps this does not 
happen as quickly at times as some would like, but I am not sure of a 
better system. As I said, if you don't have a way to filter out the 
nonsense, the whole edifice collapses under the weight of an enormous 
noise. As Jon Stewart so correctly and eloquently said, "In a world 
where everything is amplified, nothing gets heard."

[Mark]
Morals make up the intellect, but cannot be morally superior to other 
morals.  You need another word there.

[Arlo]
Well its just redundancy. It can simply be stated as, "All the levels 
are made up of morals, but higher levels are superior". (I suppose 
though this too contains a redundancy with "higher" and "superior").

[Mark]
It would seem to me you are pointing to more than provisional truths 
with your questions.  But I may be mistaken.

[Arlo]
I think I am trying to point only towards what is better, not what is "True".