Diana (diana@asiantravel.com)
Fri, 31 Jul 1998 03:58:58 +0100
Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
The higher levels of DQ are more aesthetic. By which I mean anything
from physical pleasure to intellectual satisfaction. Scientifically
there's no way to measure aesthetics so science (in general) decides not
to deal with them. But empirically, at the level of the individual we
have no trouble at all in comparing experiences aesthetically. You and I
are doing it right now. We might not agree on the outcome but we can
agree that we like one intellectual idea better than another.
> >> Thus Pirsig's talking about DQ having "morality" which superceeds SQ
> >> morailty, could be a throw-away line.
> >
> >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.
> >
>
> You can put it down to my own lack of comprehension, but Pirsig never
> explained the point to my satisfaction.
Okay, so, if you could explain which bit you're not satisfied with we
could take it further.
At the end of chap 12 he writes:
"So what Phaedrus was saying was that not just life but everything, is
an ethical activity. It is nothing else. When inorganic patterns of
reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've
done so because it's 'better' and that this definition of 'betterness'
-- this beginning response to Dynamic Quality -- is an elementary unit
of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based."
What he's saying that is is the whole of the MoQ is built on this basic
moral principle. It might be entirely exlained, but this is a reason to
investigate it further, not to discard it.
He goes on to say:
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is at a
higher level of evolution is more moral."
And as for knowing which choice is more Dynamic, he gives various
examples:
At the end of chap 11 he equates it with "pure fun"
In chap 9 he says that the 'good' that makes you want to buy a record is
Dynamic Quality.
Also in chap 9 equates it to: 'manifestations of skill, fortune,
blessing, luck to any wondrous occurrence'
These might not be scientifically measurable but they are empirically
obvious. And, as Pirsig states in chap 8 the MoQ Says that " the values
of art and morality and even religious mysticism are verifiable, and
that in the past they have been excluded for metaphysical reasons, not
empirical reasons. they have been excluded becaue of the metaphysical
assumption that all the universe is composed of subjects and objects and
anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object isn't real.
There is no empirical evidence for this assumption at all. It's just an
assumption."
> [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.
> 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.
I'm sorry but I can't see any difference. Perhaps I'm just not
explaining myself well but as far as I can tell we are saying the same
thing: Reality is dynamic and static.
Diana
-- 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