From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Jan 11 2003 - 19:43:12 GMT
Platt, Matt, the cat in the hat and y'all:
Platt asked for a quote that backs up the idea that DQ trumps SQ. Matt
posted..
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other things
being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level
of evolution, is more moral." (Ch 13, beginning)
DMB says:
I'm with Matt on this one. Pirsig reasserts this same idea in chapter 24,
where he names the five moral codes. "This last, the Dynamic-static code,
says what's good in life isn't defined by society OR intellect OR biology.
What's good is freedom from domination by ANY static pattern, but that
freedom doesn't have to be obtained by the destruction of the patterns
themselves." There are many quotes that refer to this same idea.
Matt said to Platt:
As for "cruelty," you said:
Like so many words in the liberal lexicon, "cruelty" is another ingredient
in Pirsig's "soup of sentiments" that you're "supposed to cheer for, like
"justice" and "compassion."
Matt:
Well, I tend to agree that "cruelty" is part of that "soup of sentiments."
However, I think that soup of sentiments is absolutely necessary for moral
progress.
DMB says:
On this, I disagree with both of you. In chapter 24, Pirsig spends some time
explaining that the problem with this "soup of sentiments" is a problem of
SOM and that his MOQ clears up this problem. He writes, "What passed for
morality within this crowd (of liberal intellectuals like himself)was a kind
of vague, amorphous soup of sentiments know as "human rights". You were
also supposed to be "reasonable". What these terms really meant was never
spelled out in any way that Phaedrus had ever heard. You were just supposed
to cheer for them." If Pirsig had stopped there, I guess you'd both be
correct, but he goes on to say in the very next line that this is a problem
with SOM, not liberal intellectuals or the sentiments they held. "He knew
now that the reason nobody ever spelled it out was nobody ever could. In a
SOM understandin of the world these terms have no meaning. There is no such
thing as "human rights". There is no such thing as moral reasonableness.
There are just subjects and objects and nothing else. This soup of
sentiments about logically non-existent entites can be straightened out by
the MOQ. It says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral
code of intellect-vs-society, the moral right of intellect to be free from
social control." And then he says specifically and explicitly that such
intellectual values are NOT just sentimental soup. "According to the MOQ
theses human rights have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational,
metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher level of
life from a lower level of life. They are for real." On a related issue...
In Monday's post, Platt said:
A couple of other observations. DMB is quick to associate liberalism
with socialism, confirming my suspicion that liberals are really
socialists in disguise. Also, DMB always cuts the "socialism quote"
before Pirsig says, "But what the socialists left out and what all but
killed their whole undertaking is the absence of a concept of indefinite
Dynamic Quality." So if you go by just what DMB quotes, you'll only get
part of Pirsig's position.
DMB says:
This is a point Platt and I have discussed several times, but I hope this
time will lead to a breakthrough because my assertion is given further
support and made even more clear by the other quotes in this post. With
respect to the soup of sentiments, Pirsig says that no one could spell it
out because of SOM, because they lacked the idea of DQ and the evolutionary
nature of the static levels. This same idea is expreesed in the lines quoted
by Platt above. I understand this and have no objections to it. So, I did
not "cut" the socialism quote to hide anything or evade the issue. In fact,
looking at the quote in full only adds strength to what I'm saying. Look at
how the paragraph begins. It comes from chapter 17.
"That's what neither the socialist NOR the capitalists ever got figured out.
From a static point of view socialism is more moral than capitalism. Its a
higher form of evolution. Its an intellectually guided society, not just a
society that is guided by mindless traditons. That's what gives socialism
its drive. But what the socialist left out and what has all but killed their
whole undertaking is an absence of a concept of indefinite DQ. You go to a
socialist city and it's always a dull place because there's little DQ. On
the other hand the conservatives who keep trumpeting about the virtues of
free enterprise are normally just supporting their own self-interest. They
are just doing the usual cover-up fro the rich in their age-old explotation
of the poor. Some of them seem to sense there is also something mysteriously
virtuous in a free enterprise system and you can see them stuggling to put
it into words but they don't have the metaphysical vocabulary for it any
more than the socialists do."
I hope it has become obvious by now. Pirsig's criticism of the "liberal
intellectuals like himself" applies to conservatives and capitalists too.
Its a problem that "neither the socialists NOR the capitalists ever got
figured out".
One final point. There are plenty of reasons to associate liberalism with
socialism, but the main reason I connect them here is because Pirsig does
so. These two are among the 4th level ideologies. Clearly, there are
differences between them, but they are on the same level. So it is with
fascists, fundamentalists, reactionaries, victorians, capitalists and
conservatives. There are certainly differences, but they all belong to the
third level and are thereby associated with the other "mindless traditons".
Pirsig seperates political ideologies according to their positon in the
overall evolution of life. I think this distinction is priceless. This way
of sorting things out clears up all kinds of problems and confusion. It
explains the conflicts of the present era like nothing else I know.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jan 11 2003 - 19:43:50 GMT