Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sat, 6 Jun 1998 04:42:54 +0100
Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:56:32 +0000
Martin Striz wrote:
..snip...:
> Now my critique of Static Quality. It seems to me that Pirsig's theory
> of the static world is a bit incomplete. For one thing, he tells us
> that the evolution of values has been one that goes from low dynamics to
> high dynamics, from low freedom to high freedom....from the causal and
> unbreakable laws of the universe to the almost undefinable inner
> workings of the psyche. However, quantum mechanics remains a paradox in
> this worldview. It is more basic than protons and strong nuclear
> forces, and in some ways they are built upon the quantum level, but it
> remains strangely much more dynamic.
Hi Martin and Squad.
The first epistemological part was so general that it evoked no
negative response from me, but then came your criticism of
Pirsig's static quality concept and that one I must counter.
Inorganic Patterns of Value (IPoV) were the first Q "fallout" and
looking as deep into its base - as modern physics is able to - will
necessarily reveal its dynamic roots. How can it be otherwise?
Likewise, looking deep into Biology reveals its IPoV roots; the layer
where it is impossible to tell life apart from matter. And if one
scrutinizes Society deep enough the organics of life and organization
of society looks the same. Even digging deep enough into self
(Intellect) soon reveals the social roots. Our "free" thoughts show
their social roots. Martin, this particular critique I don't find
threatening to the Q idea. To the contrary it affirms the MOQ.
> Another conundrum is the relationship of Dynamic Quality with Static
> Quality. Pirsig tells us that DQ "leads" static quality along. Both
> the teleologists and anti-teleologists are accomodated because DQ can be
> considered a "purpose," but as to what that purpose is, we can never
> know because it is undefinable. Perhaps I simply don't understand
> Pirsig that well, but if the difference between Dynamic Quality and
> static quality is one of perception and invention, then there doesn't
> exist a relationship of "leading along." While it is true that values
> have become more abstract and "free" in one sense (societies and
> intellects), the evolution of life has been one of increasing order, the
> production of technology has been more and more complex, and the
> quantum-to-atom conundrum crops back up to haunt us.
You are right about teleologists and anti-t. (Creationists and
Darwinists), and that the MOQ accomodates both camps, but
they are dead-locked into the God/Chance dichotomy and won't listen
to the Quality solution. Yes, the MOQ postulates purpose, but not in
the religious sense of leading along to a fixed goal. Pirsig says it
is as much a development away from - as towards something. Dynamic
quality opposes the statics of any kind, even the "freedom" of
Intellect are STATIC PATTERNS.
> Dynamic Quality can be considered the "leading edge" in so far as it is
> considered Nowness: the moment of perception. However, it doesn't seem
> likely that Dynamic Quality is a "different realm" that spews forth
> values to us in a set manner and determines a particular direction of
> evolution. I don't consider it to be another dimension that throws
> values into our dimension and makes sure they are progressively more
> free. To me it is THIS reality, the only one, but at an unperceived
> state (or more precisely, at the edge of perception).
> Perhaps if you don't agree I'll have to call it Strizian Metaphysics.
> :-)
I don't think there is a need for you to call this Strizian Mps. What
you describe is the MOQ as pure as Pirsig perceives it. If any sense
of "dualistic" realms (a la SOM) has crept into our discussion I
will take my share of the blame. When we wander into the
philosophologic country a certain staleness occurs: language only
have its static concepts and the MOQ soon sounds like a complicated
SOM. Ugh! No, it is as you said in an earlier paragraph:
> In PRINCIPLE, Dynamic Quality is all that exists. We live in a sea of
> dynamic values. But PRAGMATICALLY, the static world we've defined is
> just as real as anything else, it's the world we must confront most of
> the time.
EXACTLY!
Thanks Martin, you always swoop in from unexpected angles.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:21 CEST