Lilacs old and new.
I am back from my excile and have read the accumulated mail where
ROCKY HAYES' (welcome Rocky!) predicament seems to have caused some
helpful sentiments. Well, it supposedly concerns the dynamic/static
question, but I don't think that the conflict that Rocky describes
has much to do with the MOQ. This quotation from LILA:
> "That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality
> simultaneously. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific
> knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you don't
> have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from any
> further growth."
is no prescription of how to stand the suburban strain of keeping up
with the Joneses. Some people talk about DQ as if it's the antidote
to all evil, but it's a dangerous pursuit. Phaedrus (of ZMM) went
all the way, and we know what that cost him. It resulted in a
new world view, and for that I am him eternally grateful, but the
naked DQ killed old Phaedrus. There is a biblical verse that says
something about the impossibility of seeing God's countenance and
live. It's something there ...if we say "Good's".
In his second message Rocky tells about the philosophy professor
who had given up on thinking and started enjoying lawn-mowing
and tea. Except for the "giving up" quality, this is the very idea of
Zen Buddhism. After having pursued the the grand visions one may turn
to the menial tasks with a new attitude.
Miraculous power and marvellous activity
Drawing water and hewing wood.
(Alan Watts: "The Way of Zen)
DAVID B.
writes (about Pirsig's quotation above):
> Obviously, the quote is not an exhaustive statement and has to be taken
> in context. On the other hand, it seems to me that Pirsig's use of the
> phrase "scientific knowledge" indicates that he's refering to the
> intellectual level. And so it seems reasonable to believe that he's
> speaking about the relative freedom of human individuals.
I agree. "Scientific knowledge" is [of] Intellect. Re. "...the
relative freedom of human individuals." see farther down.
> I think this means that contemporary people can easily be without
> intellect. And Lila could speak the language and even had certain
> opinions about the people around her, but that is not really an
> indication that she had any intellectual quality
I agree even more. Any contemporary human being may well be "without
intellect" in the sense of not being focused on that value level.
Intellect is not the 'ability to think', but one particular way of
thinking. "Scientific knowledge" is a major aspect of this value
level, but its most general description is..... 'the ability to look
OBJECTIVELY upon things'. ("Subjectivity" follows suit,
which is Society seen from Intellect).
Intellect is higher value than Society, but it is not freedom
(David correctly uses the 'relative' term), and when Pirsig
says:..but if you don't have the freedom...etc it means that even
Intellect's objectivity is a STATIC grip that requires freedom to
break loose from.
David (as I interpret him) means that there is an increasing element
of freedom the higher one gets on the static ladder. That is:
Matter is completely rigid, Biology very much so ..etc upwards to the
Intellect where we humans are relatively free. I agree....in a way.
ALL levels once bordered directly to DQ, and when the Inorganic
level was all there was, it was dynamic enough to allow life, but
once Biology had established itself, IT became DQ's neighbour while
Inorganism closed its "window of opportunity" (no new life forms has
ever occurred), and so on upwards until now Intellect is at the
dynamic border. But few venture to the frightening "wild west".
It may sound as if I deviate from Pirsig when I say that it
don't take much freedom to ...change those (scientific
theories) patterns .... For instance, when Einstein "changed"
Newton's physics he was already inside the scientific tradition of
one theory replacing another and needed not venture far into the
Dynamic territory. He went some distance I admit, but the
real dizzying shift took place with Bruno, Kepler and Galileo who
challenged the church's (Social) authority.
And what today requires a vistit to - beyond perhaps - the DYNAMIC
border is to challenge the top value level's foundations, not by
forwarding a weird theory about worm-holes or time travels or
something that, according to the cover blurbs, "challenges scientific
truths". Ha! that is warmly welcomed and will possibly land you a
Nobel Prize. No, no, the real scary thing is to declare that
Intellect's objectivity (scientific knowledge) is just another static
value latch!
Exactly what Pirsig has done. Such a statement - if understood at all
- don't bring prizes, but rather Intellect's scorn; otherwise
embarrassed silence.. Something that has befallen Pirsig. His ideas
can't become gradually accepted. A Q-physics wont slowly replace the
SOM physics (I have left that conviction). It's all or nothing, but
once you have grasped its significance you understand that Intellect
may well live on as a Q-Intellect .....after a new static X-level
has established itself!
See. Inorganic matter "lived" on after Biology had established
itself, and Biology after Society and Society after Intellect. Not
undisturbed but ineradicable. Intellect will certainly be transformed
by a new static latch (I see differently upon it already :-), but
it's come to stay. It is of course ridiculous to speak of an X-level,
it may take thousands of years and countless starts and failures, but
the underlying dynamism is relentless.
I possibly don't heed John's messiah warning by such pompous talk,
but if I didn't believe that Pirsig's is a turning point in
philosophy's history I would have tired of discussing his ideas a
long time ago.
DIANA wrote: (30 July)
> I haven't disappeared but I got stuck again. Bodvar's SOLAQI idea is
> up again, it seems to have some value, we really must have a proper
> talk about it some time.
Thanks Diana. You will probably spot it in the above too ;-) and I
agree that it should become an issue. In the next millennium perhaps?
Also thanks for the message of 5 Aug. on the Rocky business, it
closes the case.
One little thing if I may. Some lines of your messages goes on
forever to the right and makes it impossible to print out. As it
is well worth saving to paper, could you do something about it?
Think about future's archaeologists when they seeks for the roots of
the "new age" among our petrified computers ;-).
Hope this is within limits.
Bo
["Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder.
Quality IS the eye of the beholder".
(Platt Holden)]
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:48 GMT