ROGER POINTS OUT A MISUNDERSTANDING AMONG SOME SQUAD MEMBERS ON
UNDERSTANDING THE LEVELS
To; All members and direct comments to Jonathan, David and Bo,
IN LATE DECEMBER, JONATHAN WROTE:
<<Intellect (as planning) is a force for change. The levels define WHAT we
change. Intellect is no more a level than that other force for change,
Evolution.>>
I (ROGER) RESPONDED:
<<The levels are defined by their forces of change, not by the emergent
patterns. I would reverse your statement and say that:
1)Intellect(planning) is a unique force of change
2)The levels are defined by the forces of change, not by the emergent
patterns
3)Intellect is a level>>
JONATHAN ANSWERED:
<<Thanks for putting your view so succinctly. It makes it easier for me to
state my disagreement. Can you clarify 2)? What are the "forces of
change" which define the inorganic, biological and social levels?
Pirsig describes them all in terms of their patterns (static quality). I
believe that the majority opinion within the squad is to regard the
force for change as DQ - which is outside any of the static levels.>>
I NOW ADD:
It isn't my view, it is my understanding of Pirsig's view.
And I agree that there are some other members of the squad that
share the confusion on the subject. Chapter 12 and 13 of
Lila are the chapters where RMP describes his breakthrough that 'what we
change' (Jonathan's term), is not an 'independent primary reality' (Pirsig's
term). He says that they need to be viewed as 'collections of patterns'.
And he shows how patterns are each evaluated on their appropriate levels.
The question he finally answers is 'Does Lila have quality?'
His answer, of course, is that it depends on the level. His solution was to
evaluate her based on each level's 'moral codes' or 'rules', or 'forces'
(all his terms).Below are some quotes from Lila:
PIRSIG QUOTES:
<<Matter is just a name for certain inorganic value patterns......Biological
patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns are supported by this
pattern of matter but are independent of it. THEY HAVE RULES AND LAWS OF
THEIR OWN THAT ARE NOT DERIVABLE FROM THE RULES OR LAWS OF SUBSTANCE.>>
<< Biological and social and intellectual patterns are not the possession of
substance. The laws that create and destroy these patterns are not the laws
of electrons and protons.......THE FORCES THAT CREATE AND DESTROY THESE
PATTERNS ARE THE FORCES OF VALUE>>
<<First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological
life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established
the supremacy of the social order over biological life - conventional
morals - proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like.
Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
intellectual order over the social order - democracy, trial by jury, freedom
of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality
which isn't a code.>>
ROGER RESUMES:
Beyond the inorganic level, Pirsig warns us that what we see as independent
realities are actually collections of patterns. Often these patterns
involve complex interactions of multiple levels. To define the levels, you
must go to the 'moral codes' or 'forces of creation and destruction' at each
level.
Though this seems like a complication, it isn't. It is the breakthrough that
the Squad needs to clarify the levels, so that we can avoid the confusion of
trying to define a level by a multi-level independent reality. I can provide
dozens of such examples where we have stumbled on this issue (myself
included). Most of the confusion is probably a result of the stylistic way
RMP goes back and forth with defining the levels by so many terms. He
also does refer to them by specific independent realities in a few places too.
DAVID RECENTLY ASKED:
<<I'm afraid to suggest this because I can't see exactly how it could be
accomplished in fact and deed, but we have to start looking the levels in
terms of what they value. I mean if value is the very stuff of reality and
the primary empirical reality, then it only stands to reason that we examine
the levels in those terms.
What does the intellect value?
What does society value?
What does life value?
What does time, space, energy and matter value?
Not sure what the answers are, but I'm sure we would profit by asking
them.>>
ROGER ADDS:
This is the million dollar question. It is one of the major themes of Lila.
Pirsig's answers, which are on page183, are similar to Bodvar's recent reply.
Here are my answers:
Intellect values truth, consistency, simplicity, practicality, predictive
ability, usefulness, objective reproducibility and freedom from social
values (I stole these from Jonathan's "Art of Science" page)
Society values status, morality, group acceptance, power, wealth, celebrity,
social pattern continuance, and freedom from biological forces
Biology values reproduction, life ( biological pattern continuance), and
the 'law of the jungle" (eat and don't be eaten)
Inorganic values matter , energy, time and space
By the way, Bodvar always adds that division as above is superimposed by the
Intellect. I agree 100 % with this. That is why Pirsig calls metaphysics
'immoral'. The above is an intellectual division of quality. Which leads us
back to mysticism, but that better wait for later.
In summary, I believe that David's question gets to the heart of a common
misunderstanding of the MOQ . Pirsig shares his own personal struggle
to get control over this issue. I suggest we follow his example.
For more input, read my posts on 12/22 and 12/23,
(http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0360.html)
(http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0369.html)
or better yet, read chapters 12 and 13 again.
Sorry if this post seems rude, but I mean well.....really!
Let me know how you agree/disagree.
RISKY Roger
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:48 BST