Diana McPartlin (diana@asiantravel.com)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:10:25 +0100
Dear Platt and squad
Platt Holden wrote:
> I agree with Dave Thomas' suggestion that the principles should include the
> answer to "Why?"
I had a feeling you might;-)
> 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?
Um, freedom.
But then we should have a separate principle that defines morality.
Morality
Morality is a synonym for Quality. Morality is Freedom.
But then you have to ask Freedom from what? And the answer is freedom
from static quality. But freedom from static quality is Dynamic Quality.
So now we are saying that Morality is Dynamic Quality. But we've already
said that Morality is Quality. So that means that Quality must be
Dynamic Quality. But it isn't. Quality is Dynamic Quality and static
quality.
I'm not happy at all with Pirsig's statement that the universe is moving
away from low quality and towards high quality. It implies that there is
another way of splitting reality that is more fundamental than Dynamic
and static, namely low quality and high quality. You can't talk about
low quality and high quality without making any attempt to explain what
you mean by these terms.
I came across this before, you might remember at one point my definition
of Dynamic and static quality was "Dynamic quality is better than
static". My rationale was that if the most fundamental thing we can say
about the universe is that it is a moral order, then the most
fundamental split is to say A is better than B.
The thing that made me change my mind was, ironically, the process of
writing principles itself. At first a few people accused me of ruining
the MoQ by adding static value to it. I can't deny that principles are
static value but at the same time I feel compelled to do it. It seems to
be the moral thing to do. The only way I can reconcile this is to say
that it is only by stablizing the MoQ that we can create solid ground
from which to reach forward for more DQ. The ultimate aim is a higher
freedom but we have to take a static detour in order to get there.
Instead of saying morality is freedom it might be more accurate to say
morality is that which perpetuates freedom. That way static quality can
be considered moral in certain circumstances too.
How about this:
Morality
Morality is a synonym for Quality. A phenomenon is considered moral, or
high Quality, to the extent that it perpetuates freedom.
The evolution principle can stay as "the universe is evolving away from
low quality and towards high quality", but it isn't a problem anymore
because the term high quality has been defined.
Diana
-- 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