[MD] Dewey's Zen

[Dan Glover]

On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Ant McWatt <antmcwatt at hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dan
> Glover stated March 31st (in response to DMB and Ant's Dewey's Zen posts):
>
>  Everything begins with
> Quality... "In Nothingness there is great working."
> Emergent patterns
> we intellectualize into music, poetry, writing, art, etc. are
>
> responses
> to Dynamic Quality but Dynamic Quality is not 'in' those
>
> patterns.
>
>
>
> Ant
> McWatt comments:
>
>
>
> Dan,
>
>
>
> That’s
> fine as far as the conventional view of the MOQ (as laid out in LILA) is
> concerned but to be clear, Dynamic Quality IS a component in the (Quality)
> events that include these static things.
> As I’ve just said to David Harding, DMB was talking about the “ongoing
> flux of experience” rather than just (static) things in his Dewey’s Zen post of
> March 28th (with the example of the artful motorcycle mechanic).

Dan:
Unless you're saying (the term) Dynamic Quality is an intellectual
component of static things, I see this as a very problematical
position. By claiming Dynamic Quality is a component negates Robert
Pirsig's statement that 'it' is both the source and the goal of static
quality events. Isn't it better to say static quality is a component
of Dynamic Quality?

And yes, I understand what dmb is saying, but I think we need to
understand "the ungoing flux of experience" as synonymous with Dynamic
Quality... not something made up of components.

>
>
>
> --------CUT---------
>
>
>
> Dan
> stated March 31st:
>
>
>
> I
> think Robert Pirsig was asked once why someone should read his books
>
> and
> he responded along the lines of: so they can become a better
>
> person.
> Oh... I remember! It was in Lila's Child... yes. He answered a
>
> query
> from one the contributors that way. If that's so, then it is
>
> reasonable
> to assume the MOQ is like a blue print for living a good
>
> life.
> This (might) entail integrating a balance of both static quality
>
> and
> Dynamic Quality in our everyday activities. There are no clear
>
> distinctions
> to be made, however, which seems the tricky part... at
>
> least
> for me.
>
>
>
> Ant
> McWatt comments:
>
>
>
> Dan,
> yes, I do have to agree that “Lila’s Child” does have one or two helpful quotes
> and is essential reading for anyone wanting to better their understanding of the
> MOQ but if you want to know where it’s really at, you’ve got to see the four
> MOQ DVDs!

Dan:
Thank you for your playfully kind words. I couldn't help but notice
your mention to Marsha that you receive little feedback on the DVD's
and your MOQ textbook. I couldn't help but wonder if you are actively
promoting these products? Do you use social media to seek out other
like-minded individuals who might help you in that regard? Have you
considered offering both your thesis and the textbook in an e-book
format on Amazon? Have you considered a website with your own name as
a way to better market yourself? Have you considered something as
simple as adding your current website as a signature on your emails?


>For instance, note the quote
> by Pirsig below (found in “The MOQ at Oxford” DVD) where he talks about high
> quality (fine) art being a mixture of both Dynamic and static elements:


> “Well,
> if you read the Metaphysics of Quality, you know there are four levels of
> evolution: the inorganic, the biological, the social, and the
> intellectual.  And Art is a mixture of
> all of those with Dynamic Quality if it's really Art - I don't say it's
> completely Dynamic Quality.  Finger
> painting by a two year old is Dynamic.
> But it's a mixture of somebody who knows how to satisfy the Art traditions
> of history but at the same time has a direction that he wants to go on his own
> to some extent, so he's not a complete copy-cat and he's not a complete
> wild-man - he's in between.  And, the
> amount of Dynamic Quality should not be overcome by intellectual quality, by
> these static patterns.  At the same time,
> the static patterns or the intellect - the Dynamic Quality should not overcome
> your static patterns to a point where it's meaningless to a person who
> writes."

Dan:

This is wonderful! Thank you for sharing.

>
>
>
> Yours
> commercially,

I trust you're being playful here but at the same time I understand
some people on this list seem to have a problem with others actively
marketing themselves. They seem to believe people should just give
away the fruits of their labors.I find that rather hilarious as we
have all (hopefully) purchased Robert Pirsig's books at one time or
another and in doing so have helped to make him wealthy.

I look at your work as an artistic endeavor worthy of being shared
with others, and not just in the class room. Don't be ashamed of who
you are and what you've accomplished. Brag about it! And that goes to
anyone out there who seeks to express themselves in Dynamic ways while
keeping in mind the static history we all share. Your work is
wonderful! Let people know about it... don't wait for them to come to
you... go to them with your message.

Thank you,

Dan

http://www.danglover.com