LS Principles - Update 2


Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Thu, 29 Jan 1998 03:37:28 +0100


Hi Diana and LS:

As usual you've come through with a neat solution to the "freedom" issue.
What you suggest ties in nicely with the structure of the principles as
you've arranged them, taking morality out of the first principle and adding
it as a separate item where freedom gets recognition. Here's my suggestion:

Morality
Morality is a synonym for Quality. A phenomenon is considered more moral,
or of higher Quality, to the extent that it supports and advances freedom.

Your "perpetuates freedom" sounds a bit too "static" for my liking.

I sympathize with your problem with low and high quality in that it implies
there is another way to split reality other than Dynamic/static. I
struggled with that, too. It seems Pirsig wants to have it both ways.
Here's my solution (rationalization?)

Pirsig makes it clear in the hot stove example (Chap. 5) that it's
perfectly legitimate to think of Quality (awareness) as being divided along
a spectrum of low quality at one end and high quality at the other. In the
example he uses such phrases as "undeniably low quality situation," "the
value of his predicament is negative," "may generate oaths to describe this
low value," "without the primary low valuation," etc.

Later (Chap. 9) he ties this hi-lo spectrum of value to Dynamic Quality.
"The negative esthetic quality of the hot stove in the earlier example was
now given added meaning by the static-Dynamic division of Quality. When the
person on the hot stove first discovers his low-Quality situation, the
front edge of his experience is Dynamic. He does not think, 'This stove is
hot,' and then make a rational decision to get off. A 'dim perception of he
knows not what' gets him off Dynamically. Later he generates static
patterns of thought to explain the situation."

The way I interpret this is that the front edge of experience, i.e. Dynamic
Quality, includes a sense of value (a dim perception) that operates
simultaneously with the front edge and makes an instantaneous judgment
along the hi-lo Quality spectrum, causing a Dynamic response prior to
static thought.

Following this line of reasoning, Dynamic Quality's sense of high value is
freedom from static values; static value's sense of high value is
resistance to Dynamic Quality.

It may seem strange to think of DQ and SQ has having a "sense. But remember
that our first principle states that Quality is known to us as awareness.
Awareness equals "sense of."

So I see Quality divided two ways in the MOQ, along a fuzzy-logic sort of
positive/negative spectrum and a hard logic Dynamic/Static split with both
occurring simultaneously, not in a separate either/or relationship but a
complimentary relationship.

We state in the principles, "There are many ways to divide Quality but the
best way is into patterns of Dynamic and static value or experience." I
agree it's the "best" way (hi-lo spectrum), even though Pirsig apparently
permits another way, because the Dynamic/Static split is the key that sets
the MoQ apart from other rationally-based philosophies.

Well, that's my thinking at the moment, subject to change of course.
Goodness knows I've been wrong before. I'm just glad to see freedom back in
the principles, no matter how it gets there;)

Platt

Catch 33: If Bill Clinton had sufficient moral sense to see his duty, he
would not be in a position where resignation is his duty.(From columnist
George Will.)

--
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