Andreas und alles
it seems that the discussion about democracy is not so attractive.
( Nevertheless democracy is a great issue in these days: few days ago
another European country, Serbia, has seemingly undertaken the way of
democracy, and this is a beautiful event for Europe. (Sadly, just today bad
news are coming from Israel. The way to a world of peace and justice is
still long....)
lunedi 9 ottobre 2000, Andreas Deppner wrote:
> What does Mr. Pirsig mean by ' an absence of a concept of indefinite
Dynamic
> Quality' ?
>
A friend of mine in the eighties went to Berlin, as tourist. Of course he
visited the Wall, ad also he had the chance for a one day visit to East
Berlin. When he came back home, he told me "that wall is too absurd. It will
not last". In those years it was not very easy to believe. Rationally, that
wall was there to divide two different worlds, and only a terrible war was
considered necessary to destroy it. But he told me he felt it. "The
difference is indescribable, West Berlin is a beautiful city, full of
sounds,
colors, people. East Berlin seems an old silent black-and-white movie".
When after two or three years the wall has been tore down, he just told me
"did you see?"
The 'absence of a concept of indefinite Dynamic Quality' is not only the
cause of a boring black-and-white everyday life. On a larger scale, it
creates the impossibility to develop new ideas, new technologies. Sooner or
later, the dynamic breakthrough happens and, like an earthquake, the effects
are as strong as the situation has been static.
Is just this the big mistake of Eastern European communism? Pirsig seem to
say that its blindness to the individual's rights is just the impossibility
to understand rationally the intellectual value of different opinions. An
intellectual system which pretends to plan everything, and defends its point
by all the means, excluding all the different ideas: the intellectual way to
totalitarianism.
Diversely Fascism is the social way to totalitarianism, the absolute defense
of Q-society values against any intellectual value.
Two ways, similar results. (there's a difference: the blindness of the
q-society is inherent and incurable. At the intellectual level, communism
with its static and rational objectivity has been immoral, but it doesn't
mean that the whole intellect is lost forever).
The capitalistic democracies have been able to give a better answer. What I
fear is the current lack of a strong different point of view. After the
second world war, the presence of communism just behind the frontier has
been a constant input for many European nations to create a system in which
many rights were granted: the welfare state has been the western answer to
many socialist instances, especially in those countries just on the eastern
frontier, or with a strong socialist party inside. Now that the cold war
is over, the welfare state isn't anymore so important. All Europe is full of
statesmen (left or right is the same) talking about competitiveness, public
expenditure cutting, free trade.
I think this is the source of my fears. It's not exactly about democracy,
it's about the lack of chances. Democracy, capitalism, free market... they
have been more dynamic than the Russian communism, but now there's the risk
they don't need anymore to be dynamic. In this sort of intellectual
stagnation, the result could be another boring movie. In technicolor, full
of lights and sounds, but poor of contents.
> Could there be an intellectually guided society with an inherent concept
of
> indefinite Dynamic Quality ?
>
This is a very difficult question. I'd be glad that our societies would
follow these intellectual principles:
"Actually, these last two piles, junk and tough, were the piles that gave
him the most concern. The whole thrust of the organizing effort was to have
as few of these as possible. When they appeared HE HAD TO FIGHT THE TENDENCY
TO SLIGHT THEM, SHOVE THEM UNDER THE CARPET, THROW THEM OUT OF THE WINDOW,
BELITTLE THEM, AND FORGET THEM. These were the underdogs, the outsiders, the
pariahs, the sinners of his system. But the reason he was so concerned about
them was that HE FELT THE QUALITY AND STRENGTH OF HIS ENTIRE SYSTEM OF
ORGANIZATION DEPENDED ON HOW HE TREATED THEM. IF HE TREATED THE PARIAHS WELL
HE WOULD HAVE A GOOD SYSTEM. IF HE TREATED THEM BADLY HE WOULD HAVE A WEAK
ONE. They could not be allowed to destroy all efforts at organization but he
couldn't allow himself to forget them either. They just stood there,
accusing, and HE HAD TO LISTEN". (Lila chapter 2, my emphasis).
Who are today the pariahs of the system? Communists? Religious?
Intellectuals? Idealists? No. The pariahs, the sinners are usually poor
people which have not been able to ride this crazy horse that is the
western model. Is there someone listening to them? Are we fighting the
tendency to throw them out of the window?
tks
Marco
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:27 BST