[MD] DQ "is"?

[X Acto]

We must be careful with this statement that DQ "is". Because when we look at the relationship
between Dynamic Quality and Static Quality we are also making a distinction, one that has been
represented in the past as contrarity. 
 To say that something "is" is to say it exists. Pirsig adds that if it exists it has value. Now if Dynamic
Quality is defined in our system as that which is undivided, then it must be a unity if it "is".
 
If Dynamic Quality is a unity and has being then it is certainly not unknown. 
 
If it is recognized as the undefined Good, it is not unknown because it is valued.
 
If it is recognized as distinct from the Static it is then divided and also valued accordingly
being better than the Static.
 
Question being, if DQ is a "place holder" what is it a placeholder for? if it has no meaning
then DQ becomes an empty term and it places the entire evolutionary aspect at odds with
this most central of terms. Why do static patterns migrate toward Dynamic Quality?
Why is immediate direct experience "better" than static concepts? 
 
Do we have reasons for our beliefs? or does our explanations rest entirely on rhetorical
posture?
 
..