Hello Again,
>From an enlightened perspective, I suspect the concept of
morality becomes less of a factor by definition- there'd
more likely be escape from constraining social and
intellectual patterns and union with inorganic & biological
patterns. So when Pirsig talks about morality being the
struggle between conflicting patterns of values, I think
he's refering exclusively to struggles between the
q-human's social and intellectual patterns and his
environment. When we explain the biological evolutionary
process in terms of struggles between conflicting bio
patterns, is it not a reflection of the intellect dividing
an undifferentiated process? How do we know there's
conflict in nature? Would it be a truer picture of reality
if one considered it as a dance or symphony? What afterall
is a static pattern of biological value? Life seems to be a
seemless process. What can possibly be static in life?
Death, perhaps? but decay is of the continuum.
The CONCEPT of _Dynamic_ Quality points to the human
condition- it was after all Pirsig who divided Quality. DQ
or rather Quality is all there is 'out there'. sq refers
exclusively to social & intellectual patterns of value. So
when we ask why DQ is more moral than sq are we asking why
undifferentiated reality is better than intellectualized
reality? If so, then the problem is that we have no way of
ever knowing.
Regards,
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