Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Fri, 17 Oct 1997 03:18:52 +0100
Hi, Diana and Lila Squad!
Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> Doug Renselle wrote:
> >
> > Anders Nielsen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > As far as I see it, the only thing able to percieve dynamic
> quality is
> > > humans or rather: sentient beings, but not societies, and
> certainly
> > > not
> > > atomic matter! (saying that dynamic quality for the inorganic
> static
> > > patterns is the quantum flux, is pure nonsense to me...Im sorry to
> > > sound so
> > > harsh, but really I don't understand what people mean when they
> say
> > > this).
> > >
> > > and to back this point I will quote Lila, p.192 chap. 13 (Corgi
> Books
> > > paperback edition):
> > >
> > > [here pirsig is talking about the (im)moralness of the
> death-penalty]
> > >
> > > "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason:
> > > 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."
> > >
> > Anders,
> >
> > The key phrase here is '[by] themselves.' Do you agree that Pirsig
> > makes it clear that any SPoV in DQ has potential for change?
> >
> > Do you agree that no biological patterns could exist were it not for
> the
> > inorganic SPoVs being in DQ? Do you agree that inorganic SPoVs
> evolve
> > and invent new biological SPoVs and so on up the MoQ static pattern
> > ladder?
> >
> > Other members of TLS have broached the topic of how far down the
> ladder
> > we go before the constituents of the SPoVs are not living. The
> > classical human-centric SOM view is that only humans are sentient.
>
> Pirsig does say that biological beings are the only ones that have a
> sense of value. In Anders' quote that is implied and in SODV he says
> "The Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical tradition here in
> saying that the senses are the starting point of reality, but -- all
> importantly -- it includes a sense of value"
>
> But then he also says that inorganic patterns can perceive dynamic
> quality (p188 end of chap 12) " When inorganic patterns of reality
> create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so
> because it's 'better' and this definition of 'betterness' -- this
> beginning response to Dynamic Quality -- is an elementary unit of
> ethics
> upon which all right and wrong can be based"
>
> Sounds like Pirsig has contradicted himself. If the sense of value
> resides at the biological level and only living beings can perceive
> dynamic quality, how did the inorganic patterns ever evolve into
> biological ones?
>
> Diana
Diana,
It is interesting that you see this as a contradiction. Jason and I
have found others too. We are trying to understand what is happening
here. Could it be that this is an issue of context instead of
contradiction?
If we could put ourselves in the great author's context at the moment he
made these apparently contradictory statements we would probably see
that they are not contradictory within the MoQ. Since he did not
establish context every time he moved to a new one (this would be very
difficult to do for the author and unnerving for the reader), sometimes
it is difficult for us to move easily with him.
Have you noticed that when you read the whole thing contiguously these
apparent contradictions do not glare back at you? They seem more
prominent when we quote small segments of his work.
I agree with your comments above.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
>
> --
> post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:05 CEST