[MD] Dewey's Zen

[David Harding]

Hi Ant and dmb,

> 
> Ant McWatt quoted Pirsig from “The MOQ at Oxford” DVD:
> “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."
> 
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> This is clearly stated and it's easy to see that this balancing act describes what we should be doing here in our posts. DQ should not overcome your static patterns to the point where it's meaningless but it's no good to be a parrot either. If it's too static, it's boring and unhelpful but if it's not static enough nobody will know what you're saying. As a practical matter, this just means that effective communication demands a certain stability of meaning, the proper terms, comprehension of ideas and distinctions. Without static patterns, every conversation will just degenerate into chaos and unintelligibility. Without DQ, following static patterns isn't really even thinking. It's just some kind of uncomprehending obedience or mindless conformity. 

Yes dmb. You hit the nail on the head.  It's this sort of thinking which is just one aspect of the awesomeness of the MOQ.  A good balance is what is best found.

Also, Pirsig's quote above is interesting.  I can't recall any other quote where he refers to an 'amount' of Dynamic Quality.  To me, that's very shaky ground he is treading on by claiming that there is an 'amount' of Dynamic Quality in something.  I'm sure if we queried him on it he would note the error and agree that Dynamic Quality cannot have an 'amount'. What we're really talking about is the effects of Dynamic Quality.  It's always after the fact that we can refer to the 'amount' of DQ in something and as soon as we point to that amount - it's no longer DQ.  We can draw these analogies of DQ as little or as far as we like...

Our minds (well mine certainly does) always want to capture things.  It would be so great if we could grab that DQ and have it for ourselves! But alas, no we cannot.  I think we ought to decide on when it is best and how far we ought to draw these analogies based on how good they are. I see great value in talking of a balance between following too Dynamic Quality too much and following static quality too much as you mentioned.  I can't say the same about claiming there are 'amounts' of DQ. That's just muddied thinking to me.

> RMP:
> "..In the past Phaedrus' own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality. Until now he had always felt that these static patterns were dead. They have no love. They offer no promise of anything. To succumb to them is to succumb to death, since that which does not change cannot live. But now he was beginning to see that this radical bias weakened his own case. Life can't exist on Dynamic Quality alone. It has no staying power. To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos."
> 
> 
> "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality, the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world. Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
> 

Yeah, those balance analogies are awesome.  There are some on this forum to whom I think you'll agree - would be wise to digest the perils of too much DQ. 

-David.