Hello everyone
I wrote this response to Roger's post before I read Mark's excellent
reply. Alas I have no time to answer that post so this will have to
suffice. I really enjoyed reading it though... thank you.
P.S. I am reworking a reply to Jonathan Marder that was sent back by the
moderator as being off topic, which I knew it was when I sent it off, so
my apologies. Hope to have it ready in a day or two.
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
> ROGER EXPLORES DQ AND CHOICE
>
> To Dave, Jonathan, Marco, Mark and MOF'ers of all sizes and stripes
>
> I)DYNAMIC
>
> This months topic involves the entanglement of at least 4 terms. DYNAMIC,
> EVOLUTION, CHOICE, AND MORALITY. I believe that we can support Pirsig's
> statement that "that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level
> of evolution, is more moral." But to do so we need to delve more into these
> terms and how they are related. I would like to start with some explorations
> into DYNAMIC.
>
> Let me launch this journey from a line of Mark's: "The here and now (DQ) is
> better than the past (sq)."
>
> I much prefer this interpretation of DQ and sq to his previous analogy. But
> let me see if I can take us even further out onto that ledge......
>
> Pure experience precedes the dualism of subject and object, mind and matter,
> here and there. DQ precedes sq. The fundamental division of reality isn't
> between subjects and objects, mind and matter, or here and there, it is
> undivided reality and divided reality. The fundamental metaphysical division
> is inherent in the choice to divide it at all. [I wrote this passage last
> weekend, but now find Dave has pursued a similar path]
>
> Pirsig takes this issue head on in Chapter 5, when he wrestles with leaving
> the pristine Quality of ZMM alone or degenerating into metaphysics. By doing
> so, he foreshadows the answers to two key questions that develop over the
> following sections of the book.
>
> Does Lila have Quality?
> and,
> What is the best metaphysical division?
>
> The primal duality is not in the choice of dualities. It is the choice of
> whether to divide at all. Pirsig faces this choice on page 73:
>
> " The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
> "Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
> doesn't have to be defined.... Quality is direct experience independent of
> and prior to intellectual abstractions. Quality is indivisible, undefinable
> and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a
> metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible,
> definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics.....A 'Metaphysics of
> Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."
>
> He defines metaphysics as a degenerative activity. However, he is drawn
> compulsively to building one anyways. He decides that it is more
> degenerative to fail to explore this path.
>
> What can we deduce from Chapter 5? I suggest:
>
> 1) The DQ of Lila is the Quality of ZMM. The above passage, when combined
> with his continuous equating of DQ with direct experience and mysticism
> throughout the book, supports a very strong relationship of DQ to the Quality
> of ZMM. It is the Romantic and Classical split that he tosses out with the
> new DQ (Quality undivided) and sq (Quality divided sorted and
> conceptualized). If this interpretation is right, then the romantic/classic
> division was a lower quality conceptual division of reality that can be
> placed on a shelf somewhere between SOM and the division of Lila.
Hi Roger
Hmmm... if you put it that the pursuit of Quality in ZMM is the Dynamic
Quality of Lila, then I might tend to agree with you.
>
> 2) The best opening to the metaphysical chess game of how to divide reality
> is between playing chess and not playing chess. Between undivided reality
> and divided reality. Between DQ -- the Quality of ZMM -- and sq -- the
> intellectualized, divided, degenerative Metaphysics of Quality. The best
> metaphysical map is a map that acknowledges that it references something else
> that is not contained on its pages, and the best move in chess acknowledges
> that there is a move that occurs prior to the chess pieces ever touching the
> board. Although there may be no perfect opening to the metaphysical game of
> chess, the essential first move is deciding to play at all.
Dan:
Remember why PhÊdrus decided to write a metaphysics. You said it Roger:
"he is drawn
compulsively" to write a metaphysics. Is compulsion a choice? I tend to
believe it is not since a compulsion is done compulsively and without
choice or necessarily a conscious awareness that the compulsion is
being acted out. So do we have a choice in deciding to play at reality?
Or do we do it compulsively? Does decision lie in a compulsive act?
>DQ and sq are
> the perfect opening. Although subsequent moves can later lead to failure,
> the common denominator to every victory at chess is the decision to play in
> the first place.
Dan:
Exactly. But is that really a choice? I say it is not. Turn around and
look at the problem from behind. How can a choice not to play have any
possible outcome on the game?
>
> II) CHOICE
>
> Now let me extend this chess analogy in another direction, to an exploration
> into the term CHOICE. To do so, let me introduce you to an awesome book by
> Kevin Kelly. Called "Out Of Control," it is an intellectual journey into the
> issues of evolution, complexity, freedom, and control. One of my favorite
> passages in this book is in Kelly's explanation of the rules of thumb used
> both by grand masters of chess and by the best chess computer programs. Most
> fascinating is that Kelly points out that these rules of thumb don't just
> apply to chess. They can literally be read as rules to live by. See for
> yourself.......
>
> 1) Favor moves that increase options.
Dan:
Good options. We have to increase Good options. An option that leads to
a dead end is no option at all. When it comes to chess there are very
few good opening moves... only two that I would ever use if I hope to
win. When I see an opponent make an opening move other than those two, I
know I've already won the game (unless I fail to pay attention).
> 2) Shy away from moves that end well but require cutting off choices.
Dan:
Cutting off choices is the pursuit of Good chess.
> 3) Work from strong positions that have many adjoining strong positions.
See 1)
> 4) Balance looking ahead to REALLY paying attention to what's happening now
> on the WHOLE board.
Of equal importance is paying attention to what is happening OFF the
board as you said above.
>
> Are the key moves of chess programs another way of stating (in chess terms)
> THAT CHOICE WHICH IS MOST DYNAMIC IS THE BEST (most moral)? I think so.
> This may not prove a darn thing, but it does seem relavent.
Dan:
The key moves of a chess program can be learned quite easily then be
applied against a human opponent with surprising effectiveness because
they were developed from the great
strategies of past chess champions. Chess is imitating nature. Stick to
a great game plan and only a Dynamic champion will be able to defeat
you... and that is totally unpredictable and without choice! Simply put,
the champion who makes no choice will always defeat the one who does
make choices.
> I think the deeper issue is to clarify CHOICE in the MOQ. Marco really got me
> thinking when he wrote "Existence is a continuous choice. If to choose is to
> pursue what's more valuable, then existence is necessarily a movemnt toward
> excellence." Similarly, citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Jonathan wrote
> "systems evolve towards increasing (degrees of) freedom."
Dan:
Jonathan perhaps should have stated: "systems [spontaneously tend to]
evolve towards increasing freedom." That's what the second law of
thermodynamics really says. And that would seem the Dynamic part of the
law.
>
> In skimming through Lila I found a passage on p180 that supports Marco and
> Jonathan's views. ..."if moral judgements are essentially assertions of value
> and if value is the fundamental groundstuff of the world, then moral
> judgements are the fundamental groundstuff of the world." And on the
> following page Pirsig adds "...everything is an ethical activity."
Dan:
We should take care not to confuse intellectual "groundstuff of the
world" with
Dynamic Quality. Not the same thing at all...
>
> If a choice is a behavioral pattern of value, then choices are by definition
> a movement toward quality. Still, the question remains, which choice is the
> most dynamic? Which choice is the most evolved? Is it the choice which leads
> to the greatest freedom of choice?
Dan:
How can one predict Quality? On the other hand, show me a wonder you
can't be sure of.
>
> Is this month's topic a tautology? Is choice itself not a part of reality?
> Are we not saying that if reality is morality then the widest range of
> potential reality is the MOST real? Expanding choice is expanding morality
> which is expanding reality. Do you see what I mean....?
Dan:
How wide is the MOST wide? How can we ever hope to consider every
potential moral happening in reality? Rather than considering wider
ranges why not consider the BEST and only the BEST. If it's not the
best, why consider that a choice at all? There is no sense in expanding
choices that are not the best. For instance, there are many ways to make
a fire but I use the best way. That might not mean the SAME way for
every time I make a fire I learn things I failed to notice before and my
fire making pattern may shift ever so subtly.
Dan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST