Horse, Platt, Davids, Walter, Roger and all recent posters:
I've been reading along and have a few thoughts to offer. Mostly I'm
interested in Walter's bottom up morality, but first...
I'm totally confounded by the efforts to make a distinction between morality
and the good. I wish Horse would respond to the post I sent a couple of
weeks ago. I thought it addressed most of the issues he raised. Seems it
slipped by un-noticed.
As to Jon's question on the SOM issue, I'm totally with DLT. In fact, I've
always been jaw-on-the-ground amazed that Struan, who is some kind of
professional philosopher, could dismiss SOM as "no big deal". Such a notion
simply defies everything I've ever learned about Western philosophy and
modern intellectual history. I really don't see room for honest disagreement
here. I think there is great level of certainty on some matters. The sky is
blue, the Earth is round and Scientific materialism is the West's
world-view. OK, I'm being a little dramitic, but you know what I mean.
William Barrett, one of my favorites, isn't the only one who tackles these
things explicitly. Pirsig didn't invent SOM. He just put a label on it. He
could have called it Moby Dick. We'd still know what he means.
****************************************************************************
BOTTOM UP? UPSIDE DOWN? UH, OH!
Walter, when I first saw the phrase "bottom up morality", I imagined that
you were saying that inorganic patterns were more moral than the higher
levels, which is the opposite of Pirsig's idea. But now it seems that you're
up to something else entirely. While I'm still a little puzzled, your recent
comments about PARTS really caught my attention...
WALTER SAID
To have a Quality whole, you have to have Quality parts first. If you're
in control of the Quality parts, like when you're arranging your living-room
with
design elements, the proces of ordering the parts taking into account the
relationships, is a Quality proces. It is bottom-up. It would be top-down if
someone told you how your room should be like. Pirsig would never state that
"it is only the whole that determines which parts are necessary". It's the
other
way around. He realized that every whole is built of quality parts and that
these parts are further built of parts and so on. The Quality of the whole
depends on the quality (incl. structure and relationships) of it's parts.
This is
the basis of what I mean with Bottom-up Morality!
DMB SAYS
Clearly the issue here is the relationship between the parts and the whole.
As you say, it's "the basis of what I mean with Bottom up Morality!". If
that is the case, then why do you call it "Bottom up" morality. In what
sense does it start at the bottom? Wasn't this idea presented during the
"moral compass" discussion? Are "parts" the bottom of something? Why not
call it - oh, I don't know - "parts first" morality or something?
The decorating example seems a little odd to me. Are you suggesting that
"Top down Morality" means authoritarian morality? If someone told you how
your room should be? What kind of furniture fascist are we talking about
here?
It seems that the parts-vs-the-whole issue isn't about the hierarchy of
static patterns at all. Its about the classic/romantic split of ZAMM.
Classical understanding is about concrete detail and Romantic understanding
is about the big picture. And isn't the aim of ZAMM to reconcile and join
the two ways of understanding? "Assembley of Japanese bicycle requires great
peace of mind."
I should digress just long enough to point out that the classic/romantic
split is still an important idea, but Pirsig gave it up in favor of the
static/Dynamic split, which is an entirely different deal. In the MOQ, both
classic and romantic ways of understanding are both described as static
intellectual patterns, different only in style. We tend to think of the
romantics as more open to DQ, but good scientists are just as creative as
the poets. Hopefully we all have some of each in us. That idea is expressed
even in the book's title, no? Technical Arts.
This is from page 86 of my paperback version...
"Precision instruments are designed to achieve an IDEA, dimensional
precision, whose perfection is impossible. There is no perfectly shaped part
of the motorcycle and never will be, but when you come as close as these
instruments take you, remarkable things happen, and you go flying across the
countryside under a power that would be called magic if it were not so
completely rational in every way. It's the understanding of ths rational
intellectual IDEA that's fundamental. John looks at the mototcycle and he
sees steel in various shapes and turns off the whole thing. I look at the
shapes of steel now and I see IDEAS. He thinks I'm working on PARTS. I'm
working on CONCEPTS."
I like this quote for lots of reasons. I used it in the other forum
recently, but in reference to a different topic. I don't think it counts as
cross-posting?
Anyway, the combination of precision and magic is great because it really
demonstrates what Pirsig means by the "art of maintainence". I mean, aside
from the actual attitudes and state of mind of the mechanic, there is the
fusion of two ways of understanding. The precision tools are used with great
care, with respect for the ideas behind the metel, so that he can fly across
the landscape.I mean, the parts and the whole are supposed to be respected
equally, no? A mechanic has be be rational and precise, but he also has to
have a FEEL for the work, the tools and materials, and even for the bike
itself. Unity is the thing, eh?
But then again maybe you're not talking about any of this with your "Bottom
up Morality. I'm just asking a lot of questions here.
*******************************************************************
Roger, I think the same respect for rational precision was expressed in Lila
too. Remember the germ/patient morality question? I had quoted Pirsig as
saying that the patient ought to be chosen over germ now and forever, etc.
And Pirsig's "At last we're dealing with morality on the basis of reason"
was in there too.
There have been accusations of dogmatic thinking and such. Its been done
without naming any names, but I can't help but think taht they are directed
at me because the terms used are the approximate opposite of vague and
slippery. And even if I ought not take those comments personally, its still
worth a response. Here's the thing...
The MOQ is NOT a belief system. Its not a religion. No faith is required.
The MOQ isn't what needs defending. It is completely rational in every way,
just like a motorcycle. So when I complain about vagueness, I'm saying that
the worth and necessity of those precision instruments isn't being
respected. We want to fly as if by magic. We want the power that such
precision offers. There are lots of ways to approch any given problem, but
precision and rationality are simply standard minimum requirements for bike
repair and philosophy.
That's all I was saying in my complaints about vagueness. I don't think its
asking too much. I don't even understand why it was such a sore point. I
mean, it just seems so reasonable to expect clarity in a discussion forum
like this. Isn't it?
Its so ironic that an imprecise interpetation of Pirsig's manth truths idea
is used to justify imprecise interpetations in general. Yes, truth is
provisional, but rationality and precision are not. You know what I mean?
Thanks for your time,
DMB
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:36 BST