Jason Gaedtke (jgaedtke@scitele.com)
Sat, 30 Aug 1997 03:30:15 +0100
LilaSquad,
After a brief period away from our discussion, I must say that I was
pleasantly surprised to find a pile of messages waiting for me upon my
return. To my dismay, however, it seems that our usual cooperative and
mature exchange has given way to much bickering and egotism. (Particularly
Bodvar's harsh criticism of Doug's diagram!) Good, heated debate is one
thing, but it seems that many of our recent posts have served the sole
purpose of defending strongly-held personal positions -- without offering
any hope for the possibility of collaboration and mutual growth.
A very respected man once told me that one has no right to take issue with
an opposing position until he is able to restate his understanding of that
position sufficiently enough to receive the other's approval. Perhaps this
sort of "active listening" would serve us well...
In regard to the frequent allusions to Pirsig's personal position on the
issues being discussed, I see this as a mute point. Pirsig has offered us
a very solid foundation for a new world view. However, (regardless of what
he has or has not written) this system is not carved in stone -- it is
Dynamic! Once the fundamental concepts are understood, it is time to move
on and to allow the MoQ to evolve on its own.
Is it the intention of this group to study "ZMM" and "Lila" as sacred
scripture? (I trust that we are all aware of the distinction between
philosophy and "philosophology?") Granted, we due share a definite need
for a strong common foundation (i.e., Static Quality) for further progress
to be possible. An important point to bear in mind at this juncture is
that Dynamic Quality -- that ever-present potential for further growth --
reigns supreme over all that is or ever will be... No metaphysical system
will ever entirely capture this for our "finite intellects." My point here
is simple -- we must allow the MoQ room to evolve.
Turning to the highly debated issue of a Quantum level, let me attempt to
summarize my understanding of the positions being expressed. Doug has
suggested that Quantum (i.e., microworld) phenomena possess some static
characteristics which distinguish them from Inorganic patterns. Therefore,
Doug feels a need for an additional level in the MoQ below the Inorganic
which would specifically address such phenomena. (I personally see this as
a valid opportunity to enhance our awareness of the many embodiments of
Static Quality.)
Bodvar seems to appreciate the simplicity of the existing framework to the
extent that he entirely rejects the notion of additional levels (except
perhaps for those above the Intellectual). He also rejects a need for
gradation within each of the existing levels. From my reading of his
comments, Bodvar is content with the MoQ as it stands. (This is a valid
position. Granted, one can subsume all experience within an ambiguous
system. My question is related to the usefulness of such a system. Are we
truly getting all we can out of the Static/Dynamic split? As you will see,
my contention -- viewing the MoQ as an ethical guide -- is that we are
not.)
While I agree that Occam's Razor is an indispensable philosophical tool, I
do not concur that a concise system should universally be favored over a
potentially more powerful (albeit complex) system of thought. I do see the
need for a more evolved MoQ which might answer the underlying ethical
question that prompted my original post: How can the MoQ be interpreted in
such a way that it becomes useful and practical as a tool in making our
everyday value judgements (i.e. What is Good?)?
Pirsig led the way in Lila by demonstrating how some patterns take
precedence over others (e.g. ideas vs. social norms, doctors vs. germs).
What I am seeking is a more refined system which will answer subtler
questions. (Jimmy suggested that: "Nietzche's ubermench idea has more
value than Hitler's idea of 'the Arian race'." I agree, but I want our
metaphysics to tell me why!)
Bodvar has taken Pirsig's ZMM approach to the question, offering something
like "you will know it when you see it." This sort of statement,
unfortunately, does me no good. Intuition is a powerful aspect of
consciousness, but its significance should not be convoluted as an easy
"out" in a rational debate.
What I am seeking is not a hard and fast system of rules, nor a
highly-structure "hierarchy of quality relationships." Instead, I desire
some general guidelines that my shed some light on the ambiguity between
patterns existing on a common Static level. (Magnus's comments regarding
the defining characteristics of a Static level are a good start, but his
suggestion that morality defines levels seems to beg the question!)
As always, please share your thoughts...
Jason
-- post message - mailto:skwokÉspark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquadÉgeocities.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:26 CEST