[MD] Dewey's Zen

[Ant McWatt]

Ant McWatt stated April 1st 2012:

> > 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 Glover commented April 1st:

> 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?


Ant McWatt comments:

Dan, yes, this is a good example of how intellectual analysis of Dynamic Quality starts to distort it!

Not sure this is going to help matters in this regard but when I say "Dynamic Quality is a component of the Quality event", I'm just stating how I understand the MOQ in its conventional sense a la LILA i.e. DQ being simply the cutting edge of a given Quality Event while the static patterns are the repeated forms of reality - found to have inorganic, biological, social and/or intellectual value - that "follow" in its wake (analogous to the waves formed behind a boat on a river).  Just like a boat (that is being piloted) on a river, DQ is going somewhere but - unlike most boat journies - it is towards an undefined betterness rather than a definite destination (as found in standard teleological theories). 


Dan Glover commented April 1st:

>Isn't it better to say static quality is a component of Dynamic Quality?


Ant McWatt comments:

  Well, only when you want to take the Dynamic "World of the Buddhas" viewpoint rather than the static "World of Everyday Affairs" viewpoint found in LILA.  Again, as David Harding reminded us recently (and Pirsig warns in much of his correspondence), really all these viewpoints are only static analogies for something fundamentally ineffable and subtle.   Intellectual definitions and frameworks - such as the MOQ - can take you only so far.  As you no doubt know, by taking value as the fundamental groundstuff of the world, it just produces a better, more encompasing intellectual "portrait" of the world than SOM based philosophies.


Dan Glover advised April 1st:

> Thank you for your playfully kind words. I couldn't help but notice
> your mention to Marsha that you receive little feedback on the DVDs
> 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?
> 


Ant McWatt comments:

Dan, many thanks for the good advice and praise there; some of which - as you should be able to tell by the end of this letter - I've taken on board!  However, robertpirsig.org is primarily an education site.  I think anyone who has a serious interest in Pirsig's life and work will eventually find it and, while it's nice that people buy the DVDs and books, it's not run as a business (as I tell those helpful people from California who contact me every day wanting to increase the traffic to the website etc.!).  

Best wishes,

Ant

site administrator

www.robertpirsig.org




.