Dave Thomas (dlt44@ipa.net)
Tue, 27 Jan 1998 05:09:08 +0100
Ken, Martin
Ken said
> > This brings me to another problem I have with the MOQ. We, and most
> everybody in the LS discusses the MOQ solely in relation to the Human race.
> In this context all of this makes sense. It makes sense until we begin to
> talk about the operation of DQ before sentience. The SPOVs start with the
> inorganic level. This implies that the MOQ existed before sentience. Pirsig
> himself talks about time being a static intellectual concept that is one of
> the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality. Did he mean that the
> universe was imbued with intellectuality from the start or did he mean that
> the MOQ began with humanity? Does this mean that the Big Bang was Dynamic
> Quality or was the Big Bang caused by Dynamic Quality. If so what does that
> make Dynamic Quality-God?
> It is said that the MOQ has been in existence always.
Ken thanks for the opportunity to introduce a concept or word that I've been
rediscovering recently that may apply to these questions, MoQ, and the work of
the squad in general. I preface my remarks by paraphrasing Pirig "the moment
you open you mouth to say one thing about [this word] you automatically have a
whole set of enemies.." "Ahh, do it anyway. It's interesting"
The word, which has been colloquialized in all cultures, carries a lot of
negative baggage with it. This is unfortunate because in it's original form it
is the essence of individual dynamism. To illustrate, the colloquialism for
this word in the American South is nigger rigged. Or more politically correct
jury-rigged et al. So much negative baggage do these colloquialized versions
carry that the original meaning of "ad hoc" has been all but obliterated.
As a lover of books never having sufficient shelf space to display them all,
I have always have a "working library" of a hundred or so out on shelves with
the majority packed away in boxes. This working library consists of new stuff
I'm reading or just read, reference books I regularly use, and twenty or so of
"the best of stuff" that slowing rotates in and out of the boxes over time.
One of the books that has rotated in and out of the "best of" shelf over the
last 20 years is " Adhocism, The Case for Improvisation" by Charles Jencks and
Nathan Silver 1973. Since becoming involved with TLS this "working library"
has become overrun with philosophy and general cosmology books but somehow
this one stayed in until a couple a weeks ago it resurfaced.
I'll start with a few snips from the book and then hopefully return to how I
think it is relevant to your questions and MoQ in general.
The Sprit of Adhocism.
"Ad hoc means "for this" specific need or purpose."
"It can be applied to many human endeavors, denoting a principle of action
having speed or economy and purpose of utility. Basically it involves using an
available systems or dealing with an existing situation in a new way to solve
a problem quickly and efficiently."
"..adhocist actions: [can be] not only using contingent situations as
opportunities for resourcefulness, but using opportunities to produce
contingent, open-ended results."
"A purpose immediately fulfilled is the ideal of adhocism; it cuts though the
usual delays caused by specialization, bureaucracy and hierarchical organization."
" By realizing his immediate needs, by combining ad hoc parts, the individual
creates, sustains, and transcends himself."
"We live in a pluralist world confronted by competing philosophies, and
knowledge is in an ad hoc, fragmented state prior to some possible
synthesis...The objection to this pluralism, to such ad hoc amalgams of
competing cultures, styles and theories, is that it is indecisive, arbitrary
and confused. These are in certain cases the weaknesses of adhocism, although
they obscure its essentially purposeful nature."
A couple of more short asides, Ken, and I'll try to get to the point. Both
this book and ZMM were in the fermentation process in the same period of time,
the 60's, and both were published less than a year apart 1973 and 1974
respectively. Both also have companion or follow up books published nearly 20
years later. Lila in 1991, which is the topic of this venue, but Charle Jencks
also published "The Architecture of the Jumping Universe" in 1995 which
proposes four basic levels, or as he calls them "jumps", that closely parallel
the static levels of Pirsig's MoQ along with other philosophic similarities.
Ken's problem:
>This brings me to another problem I have with the MOQ. We, and most
> everybody in the LS discusses the MOQ solely in relation to the Human race.
> In this context all of this makes sense.
And rightly so, MoQ is metaphysics, a human construct, and metaphysics talks
about reality, it is not "REALITY"
>It makes sense until we begin to talk about the operation of DQ before
sentience.The SPOVs start > with the inorganic level. This implies that the
MOQ existed before sentience. Pirsig
> himself talks about time being a static intellectual concept that is one of
> the very first to emerge from Dynamic Quality. Did he mean that the
> universe was imbued with intellectuality from the start or did he mean that
> the MOQ began with humanity?
Now here is where maybe you and the squad will jump my case. In talking about
reality Pirig has created "ad hoc" (for this specific need or purpose) a set
of categories and relationships of Quality which allows us to talk differently
about things that happen both within and beyond our range of normal
perception, even prior to our being, and by doing so allows the potential for
a more coherent understanding of the here and now of being, that is our
everyday reality.
Why ad hoc? Pirsig's "specific need or purpose" was to make some sense out of
the philosophical constructs that had preceded him which did not seem
sufficient to accurately reflect his perception and understanding of reality.
In that quest his motives were probably no different than you or I or any
other member of the squad. Find some absolute basis for reality. Or "By
realizing his immediate needs, by combining ad hoc parts, the individual
[Pirsig,or you, or me] creates, sustains, and transcends himself." But, if we
reconstruct Jencks from above, we find the the problem with "ad hoc" (and thus
maybe root cause MoQ's rejection) "is that it is often times appears
indecisive, arbitrary,.. confused.. and it produces contingent, open-ended
results." Doesn't this sound familiar, like it could have easily been in a
critical book review of "Lila." IMO Pirsig's greatest insight is that reality
is contingent and open-ended. Which is exactly opposite of what
everyone,including me, wants to hear!
Or as Bo said in a recent post:
> Yes, reality keeps changing because our concepts of reality -
> including space and time - is subject to dynamic change. If anyone
> says that this makes the MOQ conceptual too and prone to change I
> don't think Pirsig would object.
A manifestation of this is the daily churning of TLS trying to come to grips
with MoQ. So Ken when you say:
> It is said that the MOQ has been in existence always.
No, the Metaphysics of Quality has only been around since sometime in the 60's
and then only inside Pirsig's head. But once it got out, one of MoQ's
premises says that Quality and it's flashy stepchild, which he called for lack
of a better name, Dynamic Quality, have been around at least as long as a mote
in any God's eye. But can we say for certain just how, when,and why that
happened? Absolutely..................................................
not. But with MoQ we can create an "ad hoc" picture that will better serve our
needs than the system that most currently use. ;-)
Dave
-- 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 - 16:42:39 CEST