Bodvar and every philosopher,
Chapter 12 specifically addresses the mind-matter dilemma and the free
will vs determinism debate and says explicitly that the levels of static
quality are where we look for answers to such questions. What follows is
a condensed version of chapter twelve. Pirsig closes the chapter by
saying the levels of static patterns represents a key insight, one
nearly as exciting as his original idea of Quality itself, and opens the
chapter by saying the levels are a huge plain of understanding and
recalling that "high country of the mind" metaphor. P says...
> Once this independent nature of the levels of static pattern of value
> is
> understood a lot of puzzles get solved. The first one is the usual
> puzzle of value itself. In SOM value has always been the most vague
> and
> ambiguous of terms. What is it? When you say the world is composed of
> nothing but value, what are you talking about? The word is too vague.
>
> The "value" that holds a glass of water together and the value that
> holds a nation together are obviously not the same thing. Therefore to
> say that the world is nothing but values is just confusing, not
> clarifying.
>
[David Buchanan] I guess its safe to say that Pirsig goes after
SOM's misunderstanding of value first because the most obnoxious problem
he's trying solve is SOM's amoral objectivity. SOM's "value" is a vauge
notion, but the MOQ is designed to sharpen distinctions...
> Now this vagueness is removed BY SORTING OUT VALUES ACCORDING TO
> LEVELS
> OF EVOLUTION. (The water is inorganic and the nation is social.) They
> are completely different from each other because they are at different
> evolutionary levels. The patterns have nothing in common except the
> evolutionary process that created all of them. But that process is a
> process of value evolution. Therefore the name "static patterns of
> values" applies to all.
>
> That's one puzzle cleared up. Another one is the mind-matter puzzle.
>
> The torment occurs not because of anything discovered in the
> laboratory.
> Data are data. It is the INTELLECTUAL FRAMEWORK with which one deals
> with the data that is at fault. The fault is within SOM itself. When
> SOM
> regards matter and mind as eternally separate and eternally unalike,
> it
> creates a platypus bigger than the solar system.
>
[David Buchanan] The previous quote seems relevant to your
SOLAQI idea. I think it shows that, in Pirsig's view, the MOQ is an
alternative intellectual framework. One that dissovles the "torment" of
a flawed framework. It clearly implies that there are and can be options
within the intellectual level. So this means that SOM is not equal to
the intellectual level itself, just one possible system within that
level. It seems to me that if SOM is equal to the intellect, then the
MOQ would be impossible to conceive or imagine. Pirsig continues....
> The mind-matter paradoxes SEEM TO EXIST because the connecting links
> between these two levels of value patterns have been disregarded. Two
> terms are missing: biology and society. Our intellectual description
> of
> nature is ALWAYS culturally derived.
>
[David Buchanan] But I continue to have some sympathy for
SOLAQI, because all intellect is culturally derived, we are suspended in
a language that demands subjects and objects in nearly every utterance.
It seems there is something inherently SOM about the social level of
reality. Or so it seems? More Pirsig...
> A third puzzle illuminated by the MOQ is the ancient "free will vs.
> determinism controversy."
>
> In the MOQ this dilemma doesn't come up. To the extent that one's
> behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without
> choice. But to the extent that one follows DQ, which is undefinable,
> one's behavior is free.
>
[David Buchanan] This is not exactly the same as our "nature vs
nurture" question, but I think it safe to say they are related and can
both be answered using the same method prescribed by RMP, that is by
sorting out the levels and applying the moral codes.
> The MOQ has much more to say about ethics...
>
> It says that even at the most fundamental level of the universe, staic
> patterns of value and moral judgements are the identical. The "Laws of
> Nature" are moral laws. When inorganic patterns of reality create life
> the MOQ postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that
> this definition of "betterness" -this beginning response to DQ- is an
> elementary unit of ethis upon which all right and wrong can be based.
>
[David Buchanan] In MOQ terms it seems that the "nature" part
of our nature is really just the more static and older aspects of our
being, the first two levels of static patterns. The biological patterns
are very stable and the inorganic level seems as solid as a rock,
totally static. And when SOM talks about "nurture" they're really
talking about the more dynamic levels within us. Socialization and
education are classic examples of nurturing functions, eh?
Thanks for your time.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST