Hello everyone
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
> 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.
Dan:
The "intellectual vacuum" is far from empty; rather it could be said the
"vacuum" is a manifestation of Dynamic Quality potentiality. Reality is
interpretation; every last bit of it, and experience -- without
experience reality has no meaning, like an unremembered dream it
"happens" but what "it" is that happens no one can say. When we get
right down to brass tacks, all of reality is built on the foundation of
unsupported principles, so why should we expect the MOQ to be any
different?
>ROG:
>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?
While on a certain level I can see what Mark is saying, I believe it
might be better (though not necessarily correct) to put it as:
Dynamic Quality is pursuit. Morality is Reality.
In my post to Roger last month I quoted Thomas Jefferson and his famous
"pursuit of happiness" phrase which I believe is indicative of Dynamic
Quality and which I still stand by despite Roger's protestations in his
follow up post. One might ask: pursuit of what? but Dynamic Quality is a
purposeless pursuit.
>
> 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?
Dan:
I myself see no choices. Either one follows Dynamic Quality or does not
and that is without choice for there is no choice to be made. Not
really. There is only one way to accomplish any task -- the RighT way --
and that too is without choice. We may tell ourselves we have a choice
and we may even see ourselves making choices; I do. Examine closely
though how these choices arise, flourish and fade away and one begins to
see choices as temporal detours that only take us further away from
where it is we really want to go.
>
> 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?
Dan:
Whether we call it Subject/Object metaphysics or the classical point of
view, we see here an "either/or" approach to morality and reality in
general. The old zen masters pounded away at this in first-stage koans
in order to prepare the student for purposeless detachment. From Zen in
the Art of Archery we read:
"This state of purposeless detachment is followed automatically by a
mode of behavior which bears a surprising resemblance to the previous
stage of instinctive evasion. Just as, at that stage, there was not a
hair's breadth between perceiving the intended thrust and evading it, so
now there is no time lag between evasion and action. At the moment of
evasion the combatant reaches back to strike, and in a flash the deadly
stroke has fallen, sure and irresistible. It is as if the sword wielded
itself, and just as we say in archery that "It" takes aim and hits, so
here "It" takes the place of ego, availing itself of a facility and a
dexterity which the ego only acquires by conscious effort. And here too
"It" is only a name for something which can neither be understood nor
laid hold of, and which only reveals itself to those who have
experienced it." (Page 76)
So you see Dynamic Quality is more than mastering static quality for
static quality can be understood to varying degrees; there is purpose to
static quality while Dynamic Quality reveals itself only through
purposeless detachment. We have merely named Dynamic Quality and have no
possibility of ever understanding it. That does not preclude our
experience of "It" however -- when we say we are in a "zone" we are
experiencing Dynamic Quality... well no, maybe it's better to say
Dynamic Quality is experiencing us. "It" takes over and "we" no longer
much things up by over intellectualizing.
>
> 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!!!
Great discussion everyone.
Dan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST