clark (clark@netsites.net)
Mon, 12 Jan 1998 07:29:37 +0100
----------
> From: Platt Holden <pholden@worldnet.att.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of <lilasqd@mail.hkg.com>
> Subject: LS Principle of Quality
> Date: Sunday, January 11, 1998 11:35 AM
>
> Hi Ken,
>
> Enjoyed your post of Jan. 10. There's no question in my mind that science
> does a good job explaining the physical level of existence although, as
you
> said, there's still a lot to learn and understand.
>
> You deny the existence of "logical absurdities," but since you've named
> them they must exist somewhere. It's not hard to find that somewhere if
you
> admit to the existence of concepts and ideas, Pirsig's intellectual
level.
> In fact, you'll be hard pressed to deny the existence of that level. To
do
> so would deny the thoughts in your letter.
>
> It's interesting that you ran into a time problem and had to reverse
> yourself. Time remains a huge mystery containing many logical
absurdities.
> For example, I've often asked myself "How could time be created by the
Big
> Bang when it takes time to create?"
>
> But the real question that we're dealing with here on the Lila Squad is
the
> existence of values. You say, "All is gravity and time and energy."
Pirsig
> says all is Quality. As I stated in the first principle, The Principle of
> Quality, "The world is primarily a moral order, consisting not of
subjects
> (mental things) and objects (material things) but patterns of value."
This
> is pure Pirsig.
>
> And this is more than just a difference in viewpoints. This goes to the
> fundamental nature of reality itself.
>
> So how does science explain the existence of values? What do Einstein,
> Bohr, Hawkings and other scientific giants tell us about morals? Where
does
> Quality reside in your scientific worldview?
>
> Is Quality, like a unicorn, something that only exists in the imagination
> of the conceptual level, or is it, as Pirsig asserts, embedded in the
very
> fabric of the "real world" of gravity, time and energy? Are moral values
> just man-made creations to preserve society, or were they born in the
> Creation?
>
> Perhaps you've answered such questions in your previous letters. If so, I
> missed them and ask your indulgence.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> --
> post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com
> unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com
> homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
>
>
Platt,
Here we go again, I should keep my mouth shut until I am fully awake in
the morning.
The problem we have here is apples and oranges. My point was that from
the viewpoint of the universe there is no such thing as a logical
absurdity. I agree with you that from the viewpoint of the human race life
is filled with logical absurdities but those are only due to our ignorance.
The universe and the physical world are getting along nicely.
My recollection is that when Pirsig first came up with the quality idea
he was thinking in terms of the physical universe and not from the
viewpoint of the human race. It was only later in the later stages of Lila
that Quality began to be considered more in terms of human morality and
this is what begins to concern me a little. As long as we continue to
consider morality from the viewpoint of the universe we are in good shape.
Everything is clear and not subject to misinterpretation. It is true that
science avoids any reference to morals or values in their physical
constructions but this is necessary to science in order to avoid
ambiguities. To keep their pronouncements and discoveries clear and not
subject to misinterpretation. I am sure that many, if not most, scientists
make value and moral judgements, they just don't put them in their papers.
To do so would expose science to corruption by less than rigorous thinking.
I don't look upon them as arrogant, they are just doing what they have to
do to protect the integrity of science. After they present us with their
information it is then up to society to make the moral judgements and fit
this information into the human condition and we know that many scientists
join in these discussions. For many years James Lovelock, with his idea of
Gaia, has proposed just such a system. He considers the Earth to be the
living entity and the biosphere to be the organs that maintain Gaia's
health. His daisyworld is just such an idea as Pirsig is proposing as I
understand Pirsig's original concept. That is, it is a good example of the
kind of Quality that Pirsig is proposing. In Lovelock's view the universe
is a moral order but if there were human white daisy growers and human
black daisy growers and human gray daisy growers all competing for the same
market the human values would be different, and the results for Gaia would
not be so salubrious. Can you see why I begin to get a little antsy when we
begin to define Quality and Value in human terms? That way could lie Aimee
Semple McPherson, or Jim Baker, or even Rush Limbaugh.
If we talk about these ideas and everyday things we have to use
subject\object terms. We can't say, "I got out of value this morning and
valued and brushed my value and drove my value to value." and so forth. As
Heisenberg says, we can't get away from the old words. we still have to use
them. I think Pirsig was facing similar problems when he gave his E meets M
talk. If you notice in his diagram he still divides his four static
patterns of value into two subjective and objective levels. (I ask your
pardon in advance Bo, but I think this may be one of the reasons you are
not too enthusiastic about the E meets M paper). I think Pirsig was facing
there the same problem that concerns me now. He was trying to present his
ideas in a way that would not alienate too many of his listeners. I think
that we need to be concerned that we don't tack on too many indigestible
ideas on to the original idea of the moral order of the universe and thus
unnecessarily drive off too many people. We need to keep the principles on
Diana's home page clean and spare and direct. I think she is doing a good
job of this. I admire the way that she does not bend from her concepts
which I think are correct.
Platt, as to your objection to time and energy and gravity replacing
Quality, I think they are the same thing. Again, if we are going to discuss
the beginning of the universe we have to use the old terms. What I know for
sure about the beginning of the universe you could put in your eye and not
need a kleenex but I have read many of the popular accounts and understand
that stable atoms have a net charge of zero. If we add up all of the atoms
in the universe we get a net charge of zero. To my mind, if we could
collapse the universe we would wind up with no energy. I can't comprehend
it but I can see where it might be possible to construct a scenario where
we could reverse the process and wind up with the universe. If I understand
correctly this is the proposition we are presented with in the Big Bang
theory. I have to buy that or appeal to God. Or it may be that they are the
same thing. I have read accounts of a proposed sequence of events in this
scenario but I can't even speculate on them until we get to the explanation
of the present universe that we see. I seem to be able to hazily see what
Einstein is talking about when he attempts to put the puzzle into words. If
I understand him correctly the universe is composed of energy and gravity
and time. The action of gravity and time on energy results in the
accretions of matter that we see which, in turn, results in the processes,
the Quality, that produced space, our solar system and the Earth and the
biosphere and us.
This "Four Dimensional Space Time Continuum" which we inhabit means that
we can never know anything but what we see or experience as we look around
the visible universe. The universe does not end in nothingness, it just
does not end. There is no edge that we can stand on and look out into
nothing. Nothing does not exist. I do not understand the relationship
between Quantum Theory and Relativity but there is no doubt in my mind that
a coherent relationship exists between the two. We are mired in ignorance
and can only hope that someone clears up the mystery for us.
Platt, I understand your repugnance toward anything that impinges on your
personal freedom and your concept of yourself but I also believe that we
need to understand, as best we can, our position in the situation in which
we find ourselves. I see Pirsig's idea of quality as being an outgrowth of
our situation in the universe and as a product of that physical system. His
ideas of morals and values and Quality refer to the universe and our solar
system and not to the human race in isolation. Our little species concerns
are of interest only to a quality system that we construct for ourselves
and not to universal Quality. I believe that such a human centered quality
system would be of benefit to us but I think it should based and informed
by the higher Quality of the universe.
To answer your last question directly, I think that morals and values, as
they apply to the universe, are embedded in the universe. I think that
Dynamic Quality is our contact point with that universe and is the source
of our intellectual growth. I think that moral values, as they solely
concern the human race, are constructs of the human race, are different for
everybody, and may, or may not, coincide with the morals and values of the
universe, but that they represent a generally upward growth of human values
and morals.
I don't know whether I have addressed all of your objections, I don't
even remember all that I have said in the space of the couple of hours that
I have been sitting here but I'll bet that you think twice before you ask
me another question. Ken
-- 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 - 16:42:37 CEST