ROGER JUST ASKS SOME QUESTIONS
To Mark, Tony, Marco, Hamish, Matt, Dave, Brad, Horse, Glove and everybody
else thinking about this topic.
ROG:
Pirsig writes "That which is more dynamic....is more moral". But many in
the group do not (or did not) seem to agree with him. Here are some random
quotes:
"I would say that it's the relationship that DQ strikes with SQ that is
maximum morality." (Hamish)
"DQ is more moral than the static ONLY when the static has been
mastered." (Mark)
"Dynamic is not more moral than static. The key to achieving quality in
any system is maintaining a balance between the two forces." (Matt)
ROG:
This is the problem with (seemingly?) unsupported principles. Not only does
Pirsig not state a clear case, but in the intellectual vacuum, each of us
fills the gap with our own interpretation. But there is more.....
MARK:
Dynamic Quality is Reality. Morality is its pursuit.
ROG:
How can I choose to opt out of pursuing morality? Can I choose not to
pursue reality? If not, does this last statement have any meaning? What is
it?
MARCO:
Existence is a continual choice. If to choose is to pursue what's more
valuable, then existence is necessarily a movement toward excellence (the
high Value).
ROG:
So, are you defining "value" as "that which we choose?" What if we choose
that which is less dynamic? What if we choose not to choose? What are the
implications of equating morality with choice?
TONY:
In many circumstances (but not all), and given only two alternatives to
choose from, and with all other things being equal, then the more dynamic
alternative of the two choices available, the one at a higher level of
evolution, is more moral.
If I test this by turning it upside down, and trying to staying right on
topic . . . then . .
Against a background of a certain set of circumstances, (the three variables
that precede "the statement in question") would it be more moral to choose
the other alternative in the equation, the alternative at the lower level of
evolution?
ROG:
Why is one more moral than the other? What is this morality of which we
speak?
Don't assume my questions imply disagreement or any absence of personal views
on the topic. I am just asking so we can collectively make our views more
explicit. Pirsig has woven the concepts of EVOLUTION, MORALITY and DYNAMIC
within and around each other. I wonder if we can find any value in better
clarifying the patterns and the threads?
Perhaps?
Rog
PS -- Kudos to Mark for his obviously Dynamic approach to the topic. By the
time we respond to him (including my responses above) he has already evolved
to new views. WAY COOL!!!
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST