SQUAD:
Congratulations for making thru two years and thanks to all the folks
who run this forum! I hope it lasts for 20 more years.
I thought Dave Atherfold's idea that we ought not pose the question on a
personal level was a little odd, especially since he contradicts himself
just a few lines later by saying, "Can this be applied on a personal
level - well yes but...". And I don't want to pick on him too much, but
I think his post essentially contrasted revolutionaries like Jesus,
Buddha and Mozart against
superficial and conventional notions of happiness like wealth, power and
beauty. What's up with that? Suburbanite and saviour aren't the only
options.
And Jonathan's objection to the use of the word "obtaining",... Well,
he'll have to take that up with Pirsig, because, as you know, its a
quote from Lila.
And I should add that his post came nowhere near answering this month's
question and apparently had to bully the moderators to get it through.
Jonathan, why do you want to play that way? You could be just as
critical without the hostility.
C'mon people! Can we please have a little respect for coherence and
relevance? Are we not philosophers? I realize its not my place to scold
anyone, this is just one guy's opinion. But I think the dearth of
substantial ideas is pretty obvious. And where is all the anger coming
from? Does this topic upset people? Is it something I've said? We've got
ten days left. Let's put it out on the table. What's going on here?
Ok, with that out of the way, I can now promise that everything that
follows will be sweet-hearted and nice. There'll be no more compaints in
this post.
Here are some questions for you. How does Pirsig's concept of "karma"
fit into this question? Remember how he describes it as "evolutionary
garbage"? It seems to me that he is talking about obsolete static
patterns of value that have become a drag on evolution. He used this
idea in reference to Lila's psychiatric problems, but I'm sure he meant
it to have other, larger implications. Let me be clear....
It seems that the troublesome appendix and the persistence of racism are
examples of evolutionary garbage on the biological and social levels
respectively. Whatever purpose the appendix once served is now lost and
all it is good for is bursting and causing alot of pain and sometimes
even death. Maybe the feeling that "other" kinds of people are bad and
have to be eliminated once served the evolutionary process, but now, in
global and multicultural societies racism is obviously a destructive and
deadly social value. This is what I think Pirsig means by the phrase,
"evolutionary garbage". This garbage is a vestige of the past that now
has relatively low quality.
So, in terms of our question, it seems there is the issue of obtaining
the "wrong" static patterns of value. I mean, it seems just as easy for
people to latch onto low quality values as high quality values. What
else could explain Cubs fans? Perhaps they're even easier. Degeneration
must take less effort than progress or even stability, doesn't it? This
is more a question than a statement.
On a related topic, don't you think Pirsig has made the case that our
culture and world view is based on obsolete assumptions and is
particularly shut off to DQ as a result? Isn't the MOQ a cure for SOM's
cold objectivity? Isn't is a cure for certain kinds of cultural
blindness? Isn't Pirsig saying the West doesn't value and therefore can
not see Dynamic Quality very well? It seems to me that one has to be a
bit of a contrarian to obtain both DQ and sQ simultaneously, especially
in our culture.
David B.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:49 GMT