LS Re: The Principle of Quality


Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sat, 17 Jan 1998 04:08:17 +0100


Hi Anthony, Diana and LS:

Anthony wrote:
  
> To say "Quality is thge ethical principle of the
> good" is a tautology as "Quality" is a synonym of
> "good". You could say "Quality is reality" as
> Diana has done but this leaves the question of
> "reality" for whom (or what)? This is why I used the
> Pirsig`s quote that Quality is "the first slice of
> undivided experience" by trying to get away from a
> tautological definition and saying something
> further about Quality i.e. that it is immediate undivided
> experience BEFORE a formal intellectual definition which
> would be immoral according to the MOQ.

When writing my version of the principles I tried to stick close to
Pirsig's own words. Here's what he said about Quality being an ethical
principle. (Lila, Chap.30. p.383, hard cover.)

"Dharma is Quality itself, the principle of rightness which gives structure
and purpose to the evolution of all life and to the evolving understanding
of the universe which life has created."

If you just say, "Quality is good" you have a basic tautology. But if you
say, "Quality is a principle ..." I think you escape.

Also, the "principle of rightness" goes to the heart of the MoQ because it
explains the mystery of "fine tuning" and "self-organization" that was
required to create a universe that created people capable of wondering how
the universe was created. The alternative explanation is "Oops."
  
> Principle 10 of Platt`s "Principles" is incorrect. If only
> living beings could respond to Dynamic Quality the
> evolutionary process of quantum forces/ sub-atomic
> particles would not have proceeded any further. What you
> can say about Dynamic Quality, however, is that it is only
> sentinent beings such as humans who can grasp some
> understanding of it through meditation, vision quests etc.

Pirsig wrote: (Lila, Chap. 13, p. 161)

"These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality.
Only a living being can do that."

I take Pirsig literally. We can always rationalize and put our own spin on
his flat assertion that "Only a living being can do that." We can say he
really didn't mean it, but said it to avoid getting into a controversy
about panpsychism. Or, maybe he meant that even though atoms could respond
to Dynamic Quality in the past, they are now so statically locked in that
they've lost the ability. Or, perhaps he intended the statement to be true
only in the context of capital punishment where the quote appears.

Such rationalizations (conjectures) are an example of why I agree with your
argument that "intellect" should replace "rationality" in the MoQ. Science
began as a revolt against the rationalism of the Scholastics whose "a
prior" ideas led them to argue about how many angels could dance on the
head of a pin. As you point out, science turned to empiricism which is the
basis of the MoQ.

Too often, rationalism is used to support a hidden agenda. Doug's quote
from ZMM puts it nicely: "The cause of our current social crises ...is a
genetic defect within the nature of reason itself."

Just as Doug ends his letters with a provocative quote, I'm going to start
ending mine with a paradox to show that we cannot always rely on reason to
guide the way. Here's the first one.

Catch 23: To say we can never know ultimate reality is to say we know
something about it.

Platt

  

--
post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
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 - 16:42:38 CEST