LS DQ and Morality


clark (clark@netsites.net)
Fri, 31 Jul 1998 02:23:57 +0100


LS:

Jonathan wrote:
It comes down to whether or not the patterns of which SQ is made have
absolute existence. Almost since the beginning of my participation in
the LS
I have argued that patterns have no existence unless they are perceived.
To put it in the context of the dialogue between Maggie and
pstira@escape.com (whoever you are), patterns have no existence unless
they have perceived quality.

Clark wrote:
  Jonathan, I have difficulty with the concept that patterns have no
existence unless they are perceived. Surely the universe was built up
and
made ready for our evolution by patterns that were not perceived since
there was no sentience around to perceive them. To my mind it is not
necessary for Quality to be perceived to have morality. I think Quality
is
morality and has been in operation since the beginning.

MAGGIE:-
>> Don't you think there is a lot of existing SQ that cannot be defined,
>> analyzed and subjected to rational tests?
>>
>> I'm thinking of
>>* all kinds of patterns that have evolved over time that haven't been
>> noticed
>>* patterns we don't know how to notice,
>>* patterns that people (intellect) don't value (and therefore cannot
>> define) but WOULD be valued by biology or the social level

Clark wrote:
  Maggie I think you are exactly right. There is, no doubt, much, much
SQ
out there that we are ignorant of which has arisen not only from the
(dare
I say it) non-sentient level as well as from the SQs of other people of
which we are not aware. It strikes me that we tend to forget about
Pirsig's
"Many Truths" concept when we are talking of DQ and SQ. He is very
positive
about this idea that we individually have our own Quality mechanisms and
only indirectly have access to the SQs of other people. What this means
to
me is that we have three inputs to our personal store of SQs. One is the
Mythos that is passed on to us through our culture. One is through the
operation of non-sentient DQ and one is through the operation of our
individual Quality. The result is that we each have our own particular
vision of the universe in which we live. I think that there are many SQs
out there of which we are unaware many of which it is vital that we be
aware of and agree upon for the viability of the biosphere.

DIANA wrote:
[snip]
>The answer would seem to be
>that static latching can lead to even higher levels of DQ. Because it
>facilitates higher moral value it has high moral value itself.

Jonathan wrote:
Please can you explain on what basis you measure the "level" of DQ. For
that, you need a definition of DQ which makes it measurable.

Clark wrote:
  Jonathan, my thought on this matter is that we can only measure the
effect of Quality historically. We can look back through the recent and
not
so recent past and agree that the level of morality has risen markedly.
By
the terms of our discussion group this means that DQ and SQ are
advancing
the level of Morality in our world.

Keith wrote:
>> Thus Pirsig's talking about DQ having "morality" which supercedes SQ
>> morality, could be a throw-away line.

>Diana wrote:
>Perhaps you could elaborate on this. He doesn't just say it once, he
>says it over and over again. I can't believe he didn't think it
through.
>
Jonathan:
You can put it down to my own lack of comprehension, but Pirsig never
explained the point to my satisfaction.

Clark wrote:
  My interpretation of the higher morality DQ is that SQ is the
facilitator, or one of the facilitators, DQ is the point in the
operation
of Quality where all of the threads are pulled together and the
selection
for the increment of moral advancement occurs. There are more inputs
that
influence the operation of DQ than just SQ. The whole of the ambient
conditions enter into the parameters that influence the selections made
by
DQ. Also, it seems to me that DQ could operate, albeit more slowly,
without
the influence of SQ. DQ is the expansion valve from which sprays the
current individual state of morality to attain the next increment of
advancement in morality. SQ influences DQ. DQ changes SQ.

Diana:
[snip]
>Pirsig rejected the Hindu idea that static patterns are
>illusion and that DQ is the 'real' reality. He says that they both
>exist. The only difference is that DQ is better. DQ isn't the truth any
>more than any single static pattern is the truth.

Jonathan wrote:
With respect, my understanding of Hinduism differs. Hinduism regards
Lila as a conjuring trick and apparent reality (Maya) as the illusion
which results. Pirsig rejects this mystical view and casts reality
within DQ and SQ.

Regards,

Jonathan

--
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 - 16:43:29 CEST