ROGER RESPONDS TO DMB AND PLATT AND
OTHERS AND PLEADS FOR THEM TO GO BEYOND
STATIC PATTERNS
PREVIOUSLY ROGER HAD WRITTEN:
I think the efforts to define a moral compass or apply it to real
world solutions seems caught in the static truth trap. The problem with
solving the moral dilemma is that to define the dilemma we first
objectify it and build static models of it. We then apply some static
solution to a static problem.
DAVID RESPONDED:
Generally speaking, the problem you describe
above is vauge and confusing. You use the word "static" as if it meant
stale, old, dead or no longer valid.
ROGER:
No, I mean it more as Pirsig stated...."..the static situation is an enemy of
life itself." Or where he explained that the "solution is to dissolve ALL
patterns" [RMP's emphasis.] Or where he suggests we be like a mystic and
"abandon all static patterns in favor of pure DQ." I'm sure you have these
quotes highlighted in your copy of Lila too , right David?
DAVID CONTINUES:
The MOQ says that static patterns
of quality exist on four different levels of reality, but you've
apparently mushed them all together.
ROGER:
Just out of brevity. No mushing was intended.
DAVID:
Also I think that escape from "the
static truth trap" is about creativity, mysticism and DQ itself.
ROGER:
No argument here.
DAVID:
Static
patterns of intellectual quality are something every philosophy has to
take seriously, just as every athlete must concern himself with
biological quality. Your description of the problems with solving moral
problems seems so slippery as to futile.
ROGER:
Yea, I can certainly be a slippery devil. Perhaps we should see what RMP
says:
"You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep." He
explains that a Dynamic understanding makes the static distinctions
unnecessary.
He goes on to state that "Karma is the pain, the suffering that results from
clinging to the static patterns of the world." And in the very end realizes
that the MOQ is...." a lot of karmic garbage too."
ROGER PREVIOUSLY WROTE:
We can solve moral dilemmas, but our solutions are to be viewed
dynamically.
Our map and our best path across the terrain change as the dynamic
universe changes around and with us.
The MOQ approach is to continuously redefine and undefine the
problem. Approach it from a thousands directions and apply a
thousand and one solutions. Test these, retest. Redefine the
problem. Keep what works, throw out what doesn't. Every once in a
while try out what already proved unsuccessful and see if the
problem has now given you new opportunities to try new twists on
the old. And tomorrow, as you wake, intuit whether value has been
maximized. You will find it hasn't, so it is time to start anew.
DMB RESPONDED:
These last two paragraphs are also very very
slippery.
ROGER:
Well then this proves your point. I AM slippery.
DMB CONTINUED:
Our answers "have to be viewed dynamically"? The terrain
changes as we move through it? The dynamic universe changes around us?
Start anew every morning? See, there is nothing solid or certain or sure
in your vision of the MOQ. Its all so vauge and slippery.
ROGER:
Seriously David, you need to read beyond the 1st half of the book sometime.
Lila is a journey where Phaedrus floats into NYC while building his own
skyscraper version of intellectual patterns. But in the end, he sails beyond
the static patterns of his own metaphysics and recatches the "south wind",
the "vast emptiness and nothing sacred" which was his favorite metaphor for
DQ. Yes, I suppose we all need to sail through the static metaphysics, but I
hope the goal of this forum is to help us get through to the Dynamic Quality
, to the south wind beyond.
DMB:
you seem to think that the four levels of static patterns of quality are
stale perceptions rather than the world we live in. I think
"quasi-mystical nihilism" is fairly accurate alternative label for your
views. But this is not about name-calling. This is not an attempt to
undermine your authority by way of insult. I use those labels so that
you'll know how I'm reading your posts. That is honestly what I see.
ROGER:
Am I therefore a "slippery, quasi-mystical nihilist"?
Read beyond chapter 15 sometime and see what RMP says of these true and
objective static patterns that we live in. David, I can't think of a good
name to call you, but you have simply reproduced a metaphysics that replaces
objective materialism with objective 'patternism.'
DMB:
At the beginning of chapter 13, Pirsig had described the
easiest moral dilemma, the conflict between the germs and the human
patient. And then he writes...
" At last we're dealing with morals ON THE BASIS OF REASON. We can
now deduce codes based on evolution that ANALYZE MORAL ARGUEMENTS with
GREATER PRECISION than before."
See, Roger? Pirsig clearly aims for a moral code that is
scientific, based on reason, and precise. Intuition, Dynamic Quality and
a constantly shifting landscape simply isn't useful in analyzing moral
problems.
ROGER:
If you think so, then the MOQ is not for you. You are right, it does build
such a system, but as it evolves in Pirsig, he clarifies that the foundation
to the metaphysics is not some intellectualized absolute, but is direct
everyday experience......pure DQ.
DMB:
A moral pattern of reality, which "is real as H2O", has to be
properly accurately understood, not just guessed at until tommorrow
comes. (I can see how Platt might get the impression that your vision
leads to moral relativism. Don't take it as some kind of dishonesty. I
mean, its not an unreasonable conclusion.)
ROGER:
Perhaps the following are all mistakes and typos of Pirsig's then.....
"..the static situation is an enemy of life itself."
He hopes by some miracle that Lila can...."avoid all the patterns..."
Be like a mystic and "abandon all static patterns in favor of pure DQ."
The MOQ suggests the "solution is to dissolve ALL patterns" [RMP's emphasis.]
See the "superficiality of both his own contrary patterns and the cultural
patterns"
Dhyana is "an emptying out of all the static clutter and junk of one's
life....."
"You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep."
"Since a Dynamic understanding doesn't make the static distinctions
necessary."
DMB:
Obviously, Pirsig is saying that every moral question can be
cleared up by using his method of analysis. The MOQ is very far from
slippery and vauge.
ROGER:
I agree with the method (please reread the preceding phrase 5 times), but
have long since found the static version of the MOQ to be useless at solving
truly difficult moral issues. Would you like me to throw some moral dilemma
curve balls at you? (they may be a bit harder than the germ doctor lob-ball).
I suggest that I will agree with much of your framing and the process you go
through on each problem, I just doubt I think you can accurately use the MOQ
to write some manual on every moral dilemma and the static frozen answers.
Static answers are the antithesis of the MOQ.
It is time to go beyond New York, David!
Roger
PS -- Platt, please jump back in!!!!
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 - 16:03:16 BST