Platt Holden (pholden@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:12:56 +0100
Hi Diana and LS:
I agree with Dave Thomas' suggestion that the principles should include the
answer to "Why?"
Why is "Dynamic Quality more moral than static quality?" as stated in the
Dynamic Quality and static quality principle? Why are the "Levels at a
higher stage of evolution more moral than levels below" as stated in the
Static Morality principle?
What standard are we using to make these assertions about what is "more
moral?" Why does Pirsig say some things are more moral than others?
I submit the standard is freedom. In Chapter 9, Pirsig speaks of Dynamic
Quality: "It's only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil
is static quality itself--any pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries
to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." In Chapter 11 he says,
"All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic
Quality." In Chapter 29 he says, "They're fighting for some kind of Dynamic
freedom from the static patterns. But the Dynamic freedom they're fighting
for is a kind of morality too. And it's a highly important part of the
overall moral process. It's often confused with degeneracy, but it's
actually a form of moral regeneration. Without its continual refreshment
static patterns would simple die of old age."
If life is "migration toward Dynamic Quality," and if the "only perceived
good" of Dynamic Quality is freedom, it follows that life is a migration
toward freedom. Without this migration propelled by the energy of the "free
force of life," static patterns "simply die of old age."
To say "The highest good is the correct balance of Dynamic and static" is
to imply that the highest good is some sort of static condition. To say the
highest good in the MoQ is Quality itself is a tautology. Pirsig tells us
what the highest good is in Chapter 15. "From the cells' point of view sex
is pure Dynamic Quality, the highest good of all."
I think we should reinstate the original Evolution principle. The objection
raised about pure freedom being pure chaos doesn't hold up because chaos is
simply a word we use to describe experience we cannot comprehend. In chaos
theory we've discovered an underlying order in much of what we previously
thought was unbridled freedom. Anyway, Pirsig says flatly in Chapter 11,
"Dynamic Quality is not structured and yet it is not chaotic." In the
principles, at least, we ought to go by what Pirsig says.
Platt
Catch 32: We cannot really describe reality in words because the words we
use to describe reality are part of the reality we're trying to describe.
(Thanks Martin!)
-- 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 - 16:42:39 CEST