JONATHAN ARGUES THAT THE 4 LEVELS ARE AXIOMATIC.
THE ADDITION OF A 5TH LEVEL IS A RED HERRING.
>
> Pirsig says that the four levels of the MOQ are "all there is". But if
each level evolved
> out of the one beneath it, then is it possible for a fifth level to
emerge? If so what
> are the possible candidates for this level and how would we recognize
it?
>
Lila Chapters 1-11: Pirsig introduces us to Lila, Dusenbury. He talks
about American native vs. European Victorian values. He also portrays
for us the Quality idea derived from ZAMM, only this time he introduces
us to the static vs. dynamic aspect.
Chapter 10 ends with the frightening roar of wind as Phaedrus navigates
his boat through "World's End", and then as Chapter 11 develops, a is
calm as the river widens into the Tappan Zee. The mountains are now
behind him.
Now we run smack into Chapter 12 where the 4 levels are first
introduced. The first time I read it, I was horrified at the dogmatic
way Pirsig states:
"In this plain of understanding static patterns of value
are divided into fours systems: inorganic patterns,
biological patterns, social patterns and
intellectual patterns. They are exhaustive.
That's all there are."
There's nothing in the previous chapters to warn us that Pirsig is
suddenly about to introduce us to this apparently rigid,
neo-Aristotelian classification system. Pirsig is so explicit about it
that I am forced to regard the 4 levels not as revealed truths, but as
one of Pirsig's AXIOMS for the MoQ. Axioms aren't facts that are
"discovered". They are starting points, accepted for their utility. To
do conventional geometry, one must accept Euclid's postulates as axioms.
One can, of course do non-Euclidean geometry by using different axioms.
In Lila, I interpret Pirsig as saying "If you want to talk MoQ, you must
accept my 4 levels as an axiom". Looking through the history of the Lila
Squad discussions, I see that many people have suggested splitting
levels, merging levels, reversing levels. IMO this is perfectly valid,
providing alternative frameworks, but they should be called
non-Pirsigian MoQ. For this reason, I regard the 5th level idea as a red
herring.
One further point, I see no way to extrapolate to a 5th level. The
inorganic, biological and societal levels clearly occupy different
strata of complexity, but the jump to the intellectual level breaks this
trend. I personally find this quite disturbing. Thus there is absolutely
nothing to tell us how to extrapolate to a fifth level should we want to
invent one. In this situation, anything goes so it seems quite futile.
I am thus rather pessimistic about this month's topic. On the other
hand, I concede that among all the static red herrings, we might be
lucky and catch a dynamic salmon!
(For newcomers, that's an allusion to Fintan Dunne's "The meaning of the
salmon of knowledge" post from 27 Nov 1998).
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST