ROGER REPLIES TO MARK, DAN AND JONATHAN
Sorry this is so long, but I have 3 posts in one. In all cases, for ease of
following the discussion, essential prior quotes of mine that are being
referrenced start with a '<' in front of them to distinguish them from my
current responses.
MARK:
We can choose to move away from patterns which restrict our
freedom. But in reality we have no way of knowing what lies
up ahead. The best we can do is to form moral judgments
BASED ON REALITY, and then use those judgments as a basis
for future decision making. This is how I interpret
Pirsig's assertion that...
"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."
A "choice which is more dynamic" is imo one based on those
moral judgments which when formed were based on experienced
reality. A less Dynamic choice might be once based
primarily on moral judgments which originally were formed
out of pre-existing patterns rather than reality.
ROG:
Rather than go point by point on side issues, let me try to go to the heart
of your post. Are you basically saying that the choice which is most moral
is the most unfiltered by past patterns? The most dynamic, the most moral,
the most evolved choice is that which is most immediate and most open to
direct reality? My only question, assuming my summary is basically valid, is
how does the term EVOLUTION come into the equation? What is the most EVOLVED?
>Is this month's topic a tautology?
MARK:
Yes, in a way. I think Pirsig is in effect claiming that
'That choice which is based on reality is the most moral
choice, because according to my MOQ, morality is reality."
***************************************************************************
NOW TO DAN
ROG:
Thanks Dan. I enjoyed your response. It really pushes me in the best sense
of the word. Let me try to do the same.....
>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.
DAN:
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.
ROG:
So when Pirsig speaks of "pursuit of DQ" does he mean "the pursuit of the
pursuit of Quality"? ;^)
>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."
>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...
ROG:
Good point. I agree. The judgements and groundstuff in this quote imply a
static, intellectualized perspective. Mark made the same point.
But before I go on, we all agree THAT passage should not be confused with DQ,
but what are more appropriate metaphors for DQ? Pirsig uses all of the
following.... Do you agree with all of these?
DQ is.....
"The cutting edge of reality" (131)
"The source of all things" (133)
"The quality of freedom" (139)
"dim apprehension"(137)
"The immediate flux of life" (ah hell, I forget where I got this one!)
"Base of reality"(428)
"reality" (418)
"Pure experience" (418 and 419 among many places)
In addition have you noticed how he frequently uses the terms "value" or
"pure value", "reality", "pure experience" and "DQ" interchangeably?
(references available on request to all equal opportunity employers).
Sometimes it gets confusing.
Dan, please let me know which of these you agree and disagree with. Please
try to be specific. Obviously they are all metaphors for the undefineable,
but I think they work well .... considering.
>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 Ph drus 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?
ROG:
Pirsig addresses this head-on in his substitution of the word CAUSATION with
VALUE and PREFERENCE. The difference between causation or "compulsion" and a
wide aray of preferences or choices is one of degree. You seem to imply that
LESS choice is MORE dynamic, but I don't think that's what you mean. Is it?
Don't you mean that the best choice can only be made by not choosing at all?
>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?
ROG:
Huh? What greater change can be made to the game than not playing it at all?
Or to shift metaphors (yes, again Mark ;^)), any way you slice Maya you have
S L I C E D M A Y A. The opposite of sliced maya isn't to change your cuts,
it is to refuse to slice at all.
>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.
ROG:
Sure it is. You say the strangest things, Dan. What do you mean it's no
option? And what value are you adding with the word "good"? Do you mean
"options that don't lead to dead ends"? If so, you are agreeing with the
quote. If not, please help me understand....
>2) Shy away from moves that end well but require cutting off choices.
Dan:
Cutting off choices is the pursuit of Good chess.
ROG:
At first I thought you meant cutting off your opponent's choices. Now I see
you mean the opposite. I think that you and I are talking at two completely
different levels. You seem to be speaking of "free yourself from reflection
and move in harmony with Quality" . I don't disagree with that per say, but
I would say that if it ends in a dead end, that it was not a "good" move.
Obviously, as Mark pointed out, the goal of chess can be easily defined. It
is static. It is the way of achieving this goal that can be dynamic.
According to RMP's quote, as I interpret it, it SHOULD be dynamic.
>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)?
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.
ROG:
I guess my point was unclear. I was illustrating that this IS NOT the way
great chess programs are written. The programs rules or patterns are to
pursue the most dynamic positions. What? A pattern to maximize freedom and
dynamic choice? Isn't that contradictory? Maybe so, but if so then your
paragraph above is just as guilty. ("the champion who makes no choice will
always defeat the one who does make choices." is a static definition of a
dynamic style of play) Pirsig repeatedly does something similar in Lila..
>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?
ROG:
Oh, about THIIIIS BIG! ( I am holding my arms way apart)
DAN:
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.
ROG:
Because life, like chess, is unpredictable. If your best choice leads you to
a dead end or to a limited few moves that can easily be booby trapped then
you did not follow the best choice. But I am going around in circles. I
have floated a trial balloon based on Marco and Jonathan's intellectual
musings and Pirsig's writings that equates dynamic and value and reality and
freedom and evolution and choice. Can I ask you to consicely lay out your
position again? (please see below)
***********************************************************
AND TO JONATHAN
I have tried to paraphrase your post several times now, and find I am unable
to. I fear I am distorting your opinion. So rather than attempt it, let me
ask Jonathan, NO....EACH OF US to attempt a one paragraph position summary.
This is always problematic in this forum -- much like herding cats -- but I
think it can add value if we static latch for a brief moment at the half way
point of the month.
SO TO BE SPECIFIC, WHAT DOES PIRSIG MEAN
BY THE FOLLOWING QUOTE, AND IS IT SUPPORTED,
OR IS IT JUST 'CAUSE HE SAYS SO?
"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."
COULD EACH OF US SUMMARIZE OUR CURRENT
POSITION IN ONE PARAGRAPH?
This IS fun.....
Roger
PS -- The only thing more difficult than herding cats is herding MYSTIC cats.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST