clark (clark@netsites.net)
Wed, 22 Jul 1998 05:35:59 +0100
LS and Donny,
Thanks for the message and yes, I do disagree with you on our
interpretation of Pirsig's intent.
First of all, the universe was at it's most dynamic at its creation.
It
is now in the process of slowly winding down. In the process providing
latches and hang-ups for Static Quality. The operation of Static Quality
will tend to lengthen the life of the universe but eventually the
universe
as we now view it will wind up as a lump of inert matter with no free
energy to make things happen. I don't really think that this is a proper
view but right now it looks as if this is where we are headed. The
English
fellow (Hawkins, I think) has given us a picture of a black hole
emitting
radiation. If this is the case then perhaps a cycling view of the
universe
would be more correct. I don't know. You pays your money and you takes
your
choice. In either case my view of an early dynamic later less dynamic
view
should still hold.
As for the proposition that the four SPoVs occur in ascending order of
value, again, in the best of all possible worlds I would agree with you.
Keep in mind though, that Pirsig qualifies that statement with the
provision that a higher level cannot degrade or destroy a lower level
and
thereby hangs the tale.
I think we have no problem with the inorganic PoVs or most of the
biological level patterns of Value. Where we get into trouble is with
the
cool portion of the biological level, the social level and the
intellectual
level. It was not my intent to imply that the inorganic and biological
levels should be at a higher moral level just because they are older and
thus presumably more settled.
Again, I absolutely agree with you that in a universe where all static
levels have absolute understanding and awareness of the system then
morality as Pirsig lays it out should obtain.
My point is that the human race and the social level is far from being
in
a position to even understand how not to degrade the lower levels let
alone
enhance the lower levels with superior morality. Just a look around the
biosphere should convince us that this superior morality does not exist.
The weather patterns of the last few years and most particularly this
year
should make us look closely at possible global warming. The average
temperature of the earth has lately risen by a degree or so. The level
of
the oceans is perceptibly rising because of melting ice packs. The ice
peninsula in
Antarctica that directs the course of the gulf stream up the eastern US
seaboard is melting fairly rapidly. If it melts and allows the Gulf
Stream
to flow toward Africa the Earth's weather patterns will be disrupted.
Ask
anyone in Dallas, or even here in Tahlequah about global warming. Dallas
has been at or above 100 deg for some weeks and no relief is forecast
before the end of August. I have forgotten the numbers but quite a few
people have already died from theheat in Texas including a group of
Mexicans who were trying to reach the Rio Grande around Del Rio and
Laredo
to evade the border patrol. They died in the desert in Mexico.
Anyway, we could go on pointing out indications of radical change in
the
Earth's
weather and changes in the gaseous makeup of the atmosphere but this
should
give you an idea why I think that as a species we are not smart enough
to
assume the responsibilities of our level just yet. This is all in
accordance with Pirsig's delineation of the relationships between the
four
SPoV levels and in accordance with his idea of morality.
This is one of the questions I have about Pirsig and his layout of the
MOQ. I think that he, also, did not take into account our ignorance of
our
real position in the universe and most particularly the biosphere. I
think
that the MOQ is a profoundly significant intellectual construct but I
think
that our supremely egotistical view of ourselves makes it necessary to
be
on guard against the destruction of some of the lower levels,
particularly
the biological level. Again, as a species, we are still too ignorant to
be
trusted with the management of the MOQ.
I was born in 1925 and I can tell you that I can see massive changes
in
the environment during that time.
Even with perfect understanding and the best of intentions it may
already
be too late to bring ourselves into harmony with the biosphere without
massive disruption and even massive die offs.
We can say that all of this is OK. That it is in accordance with the
ideas of the MOQ, and it is. It would be more pleasant, though, if we
had
managed our affairs better and were now sitting here with a world
population of about two billion with a healthy biosphere. As I see it,
this
is the nut, and the promise of the MOQ. I do not see the MOQ as just a
philosophy to make us feel good about ourselves. It is a blueprint for
survival. Ken Clark
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST