Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Thu, 11 Dec 1997 16:41:13 +0100
Ken Clark wrote:
> If you conceive of God as the idea of Truth and Good then we first
> have
> to define what Truth and Good is. I see much discussion on the Squad
> about
> Truth and Good. Truth and Good are assumed to be the same thing but it
> seems to me that this does not necessarily follow. Truth can also be
> bad as
> well as good. What do we mean by good? Is it just what makes the
> Human
> Race feel good.
Ken,
On the definition of truth and good:
Pirsig has already put truth and good in perspective for us. He makes
it very unambiguous that truth is a subspecies of good. Truth is Static
Patterns of Value (SPoVs). Good is Quality. There are many truths, but
there is a continuum of ubiquitous Quality interpenetrating and evolving
each of those static-patterned truths.
SPoVs must have evolutionarily stable strategies (ESSs) in order to
survive in Dynamic Quality. ANY SPoV without an ESS becomes extinct.
Pirsig gave us the essence, no - the quintessence of Quality in ZMM.
Non-static Quality is not definable. We recognize it when we see two or
more SPoVs compared to one another. We see that one is better than the
other. The one that is better is 'Good.' That is, 'Good,' until its
better successor appears. In the SODV paper he adjusts his ZMM
conclusions by adding the observation that each of us have different
perspectives of 'Good.' That is 'Good.'
One of Pirsig's favorite texts is by Eugen Herrigel entitled, "Zen in
the Art of Archery," describes how a human may trance at the edge of
NOW. The ZMM Guidebook does this too, but both require a choice: you
have to leave the distracting world of linguistic, rational, analytical
thought. As Herrigel discovered, getting there is non-trivial, but if
you do, you become one with Good. To do that, you must abdicate your
current reality.
We are wasting our time if we try to linguistically, rationally, or
analytically define non-static Quality. We know it when we see it, but
we cannot define it. We intuit it, sense it, feel it at the edge of NOW
but we cannot define it. (We CAN define Static Quality!)
Humans for millennia have attempted to define the Almighty. But when
they do that, they force the Almighty into static patterns of value.
MoQ teaches us that SPoVs are effervescent but transitory vapor in
space-time. I doubt the disciples want the Almighty categorized in that
manner.
We still do not have the fundamentals down yet, do we? Let's define
Static Quality and leave the definition of the big Q for a greater
intellect than the tiny minds of Homo sapiens.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
-- " But quantum theory has destroyed the idea that only properties located in external physical objects have reality."Robert M. Pirsig, page 14 in his paper "Subjects, Objects, Data and Values," presented at the Einstein Meets Magritte conference, Fall 1995.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com 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 - 16:42:26 CEST