Hi Horse, Struan and LS:
STRUAN wrote:
> Are we not introducing an unwarranted dualism here? Zen rejects the notion of evil as a reality and
> this rejection is also one of the defining features of mysticism. I submit that evil has no place in
> the MoQ either.
Evil has no place in the MoQ? I beg to differ. The MoQ is all about good
and evil. Pirsig says:
"Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the source
of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the moral force
that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no pattern of fixed
rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its
only perceived evil is static quality itself--any pattern of one-sided fixed
values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." LILA,
Chap.9.
That's about as clear as it can be. Dynamic Quality is good, static quality
that tries to kill the free force of live is evil. Life is good, death is evil.
HORSE would also prefer to eliminate good and evil from the MoQ. He
wrote:
"The term 'Evil’ with all it's religious and social connotations can be
replaced by low value and ‘Good’ as high value."
But, Pirsig never hesitates to use the term "good." Here are just a few
random examples from LILA:
"Dynamic good and static good, which became the basic division of the
Metaphysics of Quality." (Note the fundamental dualism.)
"Truth is a species of good."
"But the Metaphysics of Quality states that practicality is a social pattern
of good."
"It adds that this good is not a social or Hegelian Absolute. It is direct,
everyday experience."
"The first good, that made you want to buy the record, was Dynamic
Quality."
Plus this from Pirsig's letter to Anthony McWatt:
"But if discussion about ‘the good’ (which is fundamentally beyond
words) is not philosophy then Socrates was not a philosopher since that
was his primary subject."
I think if we shy away from loudly proclaiming that the Metaphysics of
Quality is about morality--good and evil, right and wrong--we do
monumental disservice not only to Pirsig but to ourselves. The MoQ is not
just another wishy-washy, feel good, Zen-posturing grab bag of New Age
philogism. It says this is a moral universe, a universe whose fundamental
being is Quality--"the principle of rightness which gives structure and
purpose to the evolution all life."
To replace the term "evil" with "low value" and "good" with "high value" as
Horse suggests and Struan concurs may be politically correct in this age
of moral relativism. But doing so would be like pulling all the teeth from the
MoQ so that those of us who want to make a strong case for the validity
of Pirsig's philosophy will be no better off than the rest of the gum-
flapping theorists.
Platt
P.S. Just read Roger's post on this subject and agree with it. "Evil is
conflict between moral codes and value forces." Right on.
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 - 16:02:49 BST