From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sat Jul 24 2004 - 13:32:22 BST
Hi Paul,
> Paul said:
>I disagree with your assertion that culture is
> identical with the social level. In the MOQ, culture is defined as social
> *and* intellectual patterns.
>
> "I think a culture should be defined as social patterns plus
> intellectual patterns." [Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD Note 47]
Except Pirsig also said:
"A culture can be defined as a network of social patterns of value."
(Lila, 8)
and:
"The social patterns in the next box down (marked "Social Patterns)
include such institutions as family, church and government. They are the
patterns of culture that the anthropologist and sociologist study." (SODV)
> Platt said:
> In Chap. 29, Pirsig further cements this conflict: (between society and
the individual.)
>
> "Sometimes the insane and the contrarians and the ones (individuals) who
> axe the closest to suicide are the most valuable people society has. They
> may be precursors of social change. They've taken the burdens of the
> culture onto themselves, and in their struggle to solve their own problems
> they're solving problems for the culture as well."
>
> This bolsters Pirsig's view that societies only change one person at a time
> and someone has to be first.
>
> Paul said:
> Yes, but Pirsig's view is that the *source* of change is not a static
> force at all. His primary metaphysical division came from the insight
> that there has to be another source of change, *outside of* the values that
> comprise culture (and "static" individuals), and he identifies this as
> Dynamic Quality, not the 4th static level.
Yes, but only a "living being" can respond to DQ.
" . . . societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than
sets of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive or
adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that." (Lila, 13)
DQ doesn't create change all by itself. It works through individuals by
motivating them to change, individuals like the brujo, the contrarians and
yes, Pirsig himself.
> Platt said:
> Your presumption of success being socially determined and material in
> nature seems to go against the thrust of the MOQ
>
> Paul said:
> I *don't* presume that individual success is *only* measurable by
> material gain, but I do believe that, in general, and in my experience,
> this is how it is measured. For the record, I think that material success
> is certainly not an absolutely bad thing. The MOQ may help bring clarity to
> the opposing viewpoints on money such as "money makes the world go round,"
> and "money is the root of all evil." Money can provide freedom from
> negative biological quality by providing food and a good standard of living
> accommodation.
:
Money can also buy freedom from oppressive, totalitarian governments as
some Vietnamese boat people discovered after the fall of South Vietnam to
the Communists. Before that, Jews in Europe used money to escape from the
Nazis.
Paul said:
> On the other hand, money can limit intellectual evolution by
> controlling research and can give social patterns the upper hand in
> intellectual-social conflicts such as democracy e.g. "cash for questions,"
> campaign funding etc.
I don't understand the negative impact of money on research. Without
money there wouldn't be any research. As for "control," just the other day I saw a TV
documentary about funding of research by a private organization set up
originally by Howard Hughes that provides money to scientists for all sorts of
oddball experimentation. Results were not the criteria. The criteria was
simply "That sounds interesting. Here's money to study it." When it comes
to "control," it's the government who often controls the purse strings
(like NASA), to eventual blame or praise, as the case may be. Also I don't
understand "cash for questions." As for campaign funding, I don't see
where money is detrimental to the intellectual pattern of democracy so
long as constitutional protections remain in place.
Platt said:
> Individual success might best be thought of as adopting a new
> interpretation of reality as described in Pirsig's works.
>
> Paul:
> I don't disagree. As I said in a previous post, intellectual success
> would be measured by such things as the clarity, precision, magnitude
> and elegance of one's ideas - and if that were the dominant measure of
> individual success, I suggest we would be living in a very different world.
I disagree. It's because of clarity, precision, magnitude and elegance of
one's ideas allowed to bear fruit in a nation that covets individual
freedom that we, in the U.S., enjoy such a dynamic world. As Pirsig says,
we've accomplished this in spite of our ignorance of DQ. My point was how
much better it might be if more of us became aware of DQ's reality as well
as the rational morality of the MOQ instead of amoral SOM metaphysics that
pervades our "culture."
Best,
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Jul 24 2004 - 13:30:25 BST