Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Sun, 23 Nov 1997 03:53:00 +0100
Hi Ken,
First, let me join others in welcoming you to the LS. I feel a special
kinship since we're senior citizens and along with Bodvar Skutvik comprise
the elder statesmen of the group or, in the minds of some, the senile old
geezers.
As I understand your position you're convinced that 1) the ecosystem is
fragile and on the verge of collapse and 2) Pirsig's biological level ought
to come first because without this pattern we'd all be dead.
As for 1) the evidence is far from conclusive. As for 2) the same argument
could be used to put the inorganic level first.
About the evidence that humans are endangering the ecosystem we could argue
back and forth 'til the cows come home, citing various "reliable"
scientific sources. Suffice it to say that I'm not at all convinced that we
puny souls can affect the ecosystem much one way or the other. Further, we
are as much a product and part of the ecosystem as any plant or bug that
ever lived and have as much right to dominate them as they have to try to
dominate us. Life feeds on life. It's a jungle out there, and I for one
prefer to keep it in check.
As for 2) I think you're confusing what is fundamental with what is
significant, or more simply, bigger with better. The biological level is
smaller than the inorganic level but it includes the inorganic level and
adds something better. Similarly, the social level is smaller than the
bio-level but includes both the inorganic level and the bio-level and adds
something better. Same goes for the intellectual level. The "betterness" in
each case is greater awareness, i.e., Quality itself.
0f course we depend on the lower levels to maintain our own. Pirsig
recognizes this and warns against screwing things up, particularly the
intellectual level with good intentions trying to "fix" perceived evils in
the social level and ending up making things worse. He also warns against
those who claim to know what's good for you more than you do, the "armchair
moralists." Finally he says something I think is profoundly true: "To put
philosophy in the service of any social organization or any dogma is
immoral. It's a lower form of evolution trying to devour a higher one.
(Lila, Chapter 29.)
I fear that the environmental movement is approaching the status of dogma
if not already there. Certainly those willing to spike trees endangering
the lives of others have reached the point of religious fanaticism.
I have followed your advice to save time by speaking plainly, especially
since we have so little time left. I look forward to your comments.
Platt
-- post message - mailto:skwok@spark.net.hk unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:14 CEST