Magnus Berg (qmgb@bull.se)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:08:09 +0100
Platt
What am I missing here?
Platt Holden wrote:
> I agree with Dave Thomas' suggestion that the principles should include the
> answer to "Why?"
I Agree. I also think we should write some more elaborate explanations to
the compact principles to minimize the risk of misinterpretations. But
first things first.
> 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."
Pirsig wrote "All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward
Dynamic Quality.", not "life is migration toward Dynamic Quality". It is the
static patterns that are migrating. Without them, there will be no migration
toward anything.
> 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.
No! Any dynamic intervention gives a non static condition.
> 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.
Let me describe what I mean with chaos. It's quite simple really. Every
static pattern we've ever known will disintegrate and become *nothing* as
in "No thing". The physical way to describe it is that every atom will
fall apart and become indistinguishable from eachother and the rest of
the nothingness. Every Quality Event will be completely unpredictable
and nothing will be the same from "moment" to "moment", not that any
"moments" as such would exist anyway.
That's what freedom from all static patterns means, that's what chaos
is *to me*. Please share what it is to you.
-- 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