ROGER RESPONDS TO THE 3 POSTS OF THE DAY (I promise to try to respond to the
earlier posts this weekend. I am not ignoring them!)
To: Brad, Dave and Mark
BRAD:
Greetings all. I'm new to the list.
ROG:
Welcome. I guess I am newly returned. (Are you enjoying the way you drew me
back Horse?)
I HAD WRITTEN:
"....that which is more dynamic, that is, at a higher level of evolution, is
more moral." (P 183)
It seems we either need to show justification for this statement (see my
last two posts from July), or accept that the entire metaphysics and ethical
system is based on this anecdotally supported, emotive comment. Or perhaps
someone can suggest another way out.........
BRAD:
Rog, you criticize anecdotal support and emotive comment, but you don't say
why.
ROG:
I don't mean to disparage them. I simply am suggesting they are INSUFFICIENT
to support a high quality intellectual pattern (a metaphysics).
BRAD:
Emotions are more than 200 million years old, mediated (or made
possible) by a part of the brain known as the limbic system. Might there
not be something important about a mode of awareness whose biological basis
has been selected and preserved for over 200 million years? As far as I can
tell it is the emtional system which allows us to perceive what Pirsig calls
"the leading edge of the train" in ZMM and DQ in Lila. People with damage
to the limbic system (the emotion system) often show no judgement at all.
Everything is of equal vale to them and therefore valueless.
ROG:
I agree 100% that emotions and biology and society and rhetoric and
supporting experiences are all essential underpinnings of intellect. But
they are NOT SUFFICIENT. An intellectual pattern is evaluated based on
consistency to other intellectual patterns, consistency to experience (AKA
truth), and consistency within itself (logic). Intellectual patterns are
also valued for simplicity, and falsifiability, brilliance and the ability to
solve problems that the pattern was never designed to handle. I strongly
support that the MOQ meets these standards. However, the weakest link in the
logical chain may the claim that "that which is more dynamic ....is more
moral."
I have suggested a way to forge that chain, but I think nobody is looking
back to my initial post. Either that, or it is such a bad idea that few want
to be bothered dismissing it.....
BRAD:
The Zuni
"trouble maker" Pirsig speaks of in Lila was just following his emotions,
and he turned out to be crucial in preserving a viable Zuni community in the
midst of the "great white tribe."
ROG:
See Mark's comments. Though this is just getting off topic IMHO.
BRAD:
And notice that the Zuni story in Lila is
really an anecdote. Why? Because logic doesn't work for the type of
analysis Pirsig is pursuing. It's too constraining. It works by rules that
have a way of keeping knowledge and understanding static (don't get me
wrong, static latches, as has been said, have their place. Standardized
semantic and syntactical systems are allowing us to have this discussion
right now). That's why Pirsig spent over 400 pages arguing for rhetoric
over logic in ZMM (also recall that the emotional outbursts of Chris played
a large role in eventually turning the logical narrator back into Phaedrus).
ROG:
Again, I too accept the inadequacies of logic. We have no dispute on this
count. Experience is certainly critical. However, anecdotal, isolated,
occurences certainly are insufficient to establish an intellectual pattern
(though they certainly are sufficient to destroy one.) In last months post
to Dan, I made the obvious point that an anecdote showing that "a whale is a
mammal that swims in the sea" certainly isn't sufficient to prove that
"things that swim in the sea are mammals." The Brujo anecdote was no more
conclusive than my example.
BRAD:
I must admit to feeling some frustration over something about this month's
question/topic. The dynamic over static thing can be discussed for
clarification of terms or general explication, but ultimately it's a first
principle, and first principles can't be proved or disproved. You accept
them or you don't.
ROG:
Ahhhh... so are you suggesting that we resort to Godel's incompleteness
theorem? That is, that " it is impossible to establish the logical
consistency of any complex deductive system except by assuming principles of
reasoning whose own internal consistency is as open to question as that of
the system itself."
This sure gives an easy way out. I suspect it is also a way to give up too
easily. (But I really could be wrong! There are leaps of faith within
logic itself, but I caution us against resorting to Godel until we first
fully explore whether it can or can't be supported.
After all, even if Godel has proven that logic has its limits, he most
assuredly didn't prove that it has no value. Or in other words, just cause
we can't PROVE some things doesn't mean we can't DISPROVE lots of others.
And for the record, I never suggested this topic either.
**********************
To Dave;
3WD:
Why is Dynamic more moral than Static?
Whether you lean towards the mystic or rational side of this issue a
good starting point is to look at Pirsig's basic take on EVOLUTION, for
the source of the question is the following quote:
"In general, given a choice of two courses to follow and all other
things being equal, that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a
higher level of EVOLUTION, is more moral." pg. 183
ROG:
Dave, this is the exact quote I was indeed referencing.
3WD:
So it is clear that if the moral order of MoQ is to fly the one must
accept the "progressive" nature of evolution in the face of current
scientific opinion to the contrary.
On the other hand if the "progressive" view is accepted or acceptable,
then the MoQ is the metaphysics of choice.
ROG:
I am very familiar with Gould and I find I rarely agree with his views. Read
Wright's "Non Zero" for a thorough trouncing of this non-progressivist view.
I think that this Gouldian paradigm is on its last legs. (Oh, I enjoyed
reading Stewart's "Evolution's Arrow" on-line too.) For the record, I think
that it is provable that evolution has increased in dynamicness and
complexity.
But, even if we accept that evolution leads to increasing dynamicness, we
still must ask...... Is evolution necessarily more moral? Why couldn't we
say that the stability of pattern survival is more moral? Or nihilism? Or
de-evolution? Or that it is complexity that is more moral? Or that
everything is moral and that evolution and devolution and stability and
complexity and nihilism are all just Maya? Pirsig could have said any of
these. But he didn't.
****************************
And finally, to Mark;
MARK:
The 'way out' as I see it is by understanding 'morality' to
mean the pursuit of reality, rather than 'betterness'.
Pirsig's statement can then be taken to mean that by
following that which is at a higher level of evolution we
pursue reality.
ROGER:
I agree that the best solution in my eyes is also that Reality = morality =
dynamic. Though I must admit your example confused me. (Again, I am hoping
you all go to my only two posts last month to see my reasoning -- see the
archives)
MARK:
To say then that DQ is better than sq, would be like
claiming that THERE is always better than HERE in any given
context (which is suggestive of ADD).
ROG:
And what reason do we have to claim this?
Just asking questions,
Rog
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST