Experience as used by Pirsig refers to each individual's experience and
observed data, not the collective knowledge of our times. In the MOQ,
personally "observed data" includes Quality.
I would agree that this is what Pirsig is referring to as well. It is
essential for individuals to pursue the Dynamic and to test ideas for
agreement with personal experience.
This, of course, also brings up one of Pirsig's other themes in LILA.
Namely, how to balance a society's needs with the right's of Dynamic
individuals. Without the Dynamic individual, we have rigid Social
Patterns and great potential for stagnation and oppression. Social
patterns, OTOH, require a means of balancing competing individual
interests. If individual Dynamics are unchecked, they can subvert the
very social pattern that garuntees their freedoms. Pirsig raises this
concern several times in LILA.
Isn't Democracy an idea of high Quality? Doesn't Democracy require that
individual's sacrifice some individual freedom in favor of collective
rights? "The right to swing my fist ends where the next man's nose
begins"--Oliver Wendell Holmes, IIRC.
Isn't Democracy an exercise in building Solidarity?
Platt quotes me and offers:
> I reject that notion that Pirsig would suggest a Morality (collection
> of Quality judgements) as being Universal or ahistorical. He clearly
> intends, IMO, that Quality judgements are assessments made as needed.
> Today's High Quality is tomorrow's most rigid Static Pattern.
Then you and I have read two different books. Universal static moral
patterns are absolutely necessary for anything to survive. If quantum
particles go, we all go.
Simple miscommunication, I suspect. I assume you are not suggesting that
"Universal static patterns" are not in flux? That was my point. The
Dynamic latches as a Static Pattern that is transcended by the Dynamic
again that latches to a new Static Pattern, etc. I've always felt that
the idea of the Hegelian Dialectic took on much greater significance
(for me at least) in a Post-Pirsig Quality Universe.
Solidarity's a problem. The Catholic church in its old glory days wanted
solidarity, a monochromatic population of good Catholics (and, of
course, to remain in power over the people), and we all know how
wonderfully that went.
I've noticed you've capitalized the word in question. Are you using it
in a different sense than I am used to?
Perhaps a nuance of language. I refer to the type of Solidarity
represented by something like The Declaration of Indepedence, rather
than the dogmatic enforcement of ideals "from above". Grass roots
Solidarity is the drive for building upon common experience and goals,
rather than the limitation of opportunity based on status quo power.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - email@example.com
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:34 BST