MFs
1. Free will
Pirsig's explanation of free will as being dynamic and determination
as being static is a fudge. It doesn't answer the question that's asked.
In order to have free will you must have a subject, or else who's "will"
is it that is free? If you want to have a will that is detached from a
subject then that's really an entirely different paradigm and he should
explain that that's what he's doing. He asks one question and answers
another one.
2. Dynamic and static quality
There seem to be three definitions of this
a. D and S are fairly ordinary ideas about change and stability
(eg Robert's Rules of Order).
b. D and S is the difference between what's good and what's
better.
c. D and S are like two separate plains of reality, D being everything
and S being a filtered version of things
I don't think the three are entirely consistent with each other.
3. Quality and dynamic quality
Dynamic quality in LILA assumes the role of Quality in ZMM, as
far as I can tell, but DQ and Q seem to be used interchangeably, in LILA,
and it's confusing in parts.
4. The computational theory of the mind
Pirsig compares the levels to the levels of a computer.
(I suppose he doesn't mean that that's exactly what they
are like, but it's a good enough approximation.) But I think
maybe this is misleading. The brain isn't a general operating
system upon which you can run just about any software.
He bases this theory in part on the Sapir-Wharf hypothesis
which has since been discredited. Also from my own
experience I fail to understand why anyone would think that
the Chinese language doesn't distinguish between subjects and objects.
(as claimed in ZMM) Chinese distinguishes subjects and objects by
word order, ie "I bite dog" is different from "dog bite I".
More recent theories of the brain describe it as having a series
of "organs" for social learning, language, reasoning and so on.
My guess is that all humans distinguish between subjects and objects
because our brains are biologically programmed to do so. (Which is not to say
that it's Truth, nor that you can't have a philosophy that overrides
this.) Perhaps the MOQ can still fit this paradigm, but it would need
some adjustment. We can't just ignore science because it doesn't suit
us.
5. Space-time
The Dynamic-static split takes place outside of time, or does it?
I don't see that Pirsig's dealt with time at all. Actually it's quite
understandable because scientists aren't really sure what time is either,
or even if it exists at all. But if the question is unanswered then he should
just say so and leave it as something we're not sure about either. I won't
go into the whole of his response to Anthony McWatt on this subject
but, again, I thought it was a fudge. He seemed to sidestep the question.
Or maybe I'm just thick;-)
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST