Dear Folks,
The problem with pinning down morality in Lila is I think
twofold.
Firstly, like Dynamic Quality it can only really be
referred to in very general terms. The closest Pirsig comes
to definition is:
"Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex
struggle of conflicting patterns of values. This conflict
is the
residue of evolution. As new patterns evolve they come into
conflict
with old ones. Each stage of evolution creates in its wake
a wash of
problems."
So here, morality is not static patterns of value, but
rather the overall PERFORMANCE of Dynamic Quality between
conflicting patterns. There are numerous examples in Lila
to support this 'definition' of morality. That of the new
song on the car radio stopping the passer-by in his tracks
might be a useful one to bring out this unconventional use
of 'morality' in the MOQ. The morality of this particular
event, i.e. the 'very complex struggle of conflicting
patterns of values", is between the tonal and rhythmical
patterns of the song and the tonal and rhythmical patterns
previously experienced by the listener. The conflict is not
so great (e.g as perhaps with an atonal composition) that
the listener retreats into existing patterns, but yet is
sufficiently distanced from his existing patterns to
generate an agreeable conflict (aka Vygotsky's Zone of
Proximal Development). The examples of the heart attack
victim/own hand & bored New Jersey man/Hurricane are other
examples of Morality as DQ in action.
The second problem with grasping MOQ 'morality' arises when
Pirsig claims one thing is more moral than another. This
month's Program quote is one such example:
"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."
Here it sounds like Pirsig is switching over to our
conventional understanding of the term 'moral', relating to
principles of right and wrong, but there is the added value
of morality as DQ. This statement may then be translated
into the somewhat tautological "that choice which is more
Dynamic is more Dynamic."
A final point about this month's quote: Pirsig's use of the
word 'choice' seems to be causing all kinds of problems.
If, as Pirsig claims "Dynamic Quality comes as a sort of
surprise." (Lila, Ch9) then how can there be any choosing?
It would appear that DQ is the chooser.
Did Marco choose Greece or Spain for his vacation? And
could one choice have been more Dynamic than the other? If
Marco had vacationed in Spain for the previous 3 years but
never before visited Greece, then we might want to argue
that Greece would be the more Dynamic choice. But in
reality...
"Either one follows Dynamic Quality or does not and that is
without choice for there is no choice to be made. Not
really." DAN
What we can say is that there would be a higher probability
that (our hypothetical) Marco would encounter DQ in
choosing Greece over Spain; in a newly experienced
environment it's more likely that 'struggles of conflicting
patterns of values' (Morality) will arise between observer
and observed. So then, choosing Greece over Spain would
probably offer a greater potential for more 'culture
shock', which I think is an extended way of saying that it
would be more moral for our friend to choose Greece over
Spain.
All the best,
Mark
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST