Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Sat, 4 Jul 1998 11:12:45 +0100
Fri, 03 Jul 1998 00:15:31 +0000
Platt Holden concluded:
> I admire Pirsig for many things, but none more so than legitimizing
> feelings and bringing them back to philosophy.
Platt and all Lila Squad!
I wholeheartedly join you in your final sentence, but as I will be
off on a vacation trip from next week - and the said masterstroke is
worth a separate discussion line - this message will just be a
summary of the debate I have participated in during the last weeks.
First of all do I think the trend is very positive and that we are
making progress in our understanding and application of Pirsig's
ideas. Even the constructive criticism has contributed to this.
I appreciate that our hostess Diana McPartlin has allowed a certain
freedom of "subject" when newcomers arrive and try to orientate
themselves about what's going on. The present "Explain the
DQ/SQ split" is now drawing to a conclusion and it seems that the
CHANGE VS PERMANENCE is generally accepted. Theo's calm voice settled
the is-change-always-good? objection.
Horse launched the question: "How, do we know what's good?" Phew!
That's the arch SOM riddle that the MOQ is supposed to solve in its
unique way by doing away with the notion of a subject judging
objective reality. "We" aren't just Intellectual, but also Inorganic,
Biological and Social, and the good of these four levels seldom
converge - except for the lower being the higher's prerequisite,
which creates the EVIL problem of SOM. Possibly did Horse mean how
our Biological "me" evaluate what's good within the BiPoV realm and
so on for the other levels. I think Dianat and Magnus answered that
very well.
Glove flew into heavy flak after launching his views where the MOQ was
thrown in with Darwinism and evolutionary theory; a strange fellowship
for Pirsig! But I think Glove eventually will come to see how the
Quality metaphysics in fact may support Rupert Sheldrake's
"morphogenetic" idea (at this point I goofed when I said that RS
didn't refer to Charles Peirce' Semiotics. He DOES! Hopefully does
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe monitor the exchange and have something to say
when this topic reappears. Also do I wonder if Jonathan knows about
Sheldrake?)
Anthony was a bit harsh on Glove (some kid possibly threw a ball
through his window :-)?) and I support Theo's mild reprimand there.
But Anthony correctly pointed to the very essence of the MOQ by
mentioning the various moral levels "differences". The replacement of
the subject/object by the Dynamic-Static Value as the basic division
is the important thing. I trust Glove will give it second
considerations)
In connection with the 4-tiered moral system I noticed Michael
Darling's question:
> >I understand the recognition/reaction dilemma, but I think the question
> >goes to whether the presence of an observer changes the nature of the
> >interaction. Since no one has yet defined who exactly is doing the
> >observing-
We have in fact been on to that problem earlier, but as no "Summary"
exists of our proceedings (and nobody would care to read it anyway) we
seem bound to return to old fields again and again.
Finally do I wish Nick Adams welcome to the group. Regrettably
have I not had the time to look into your own SiliconSalon site, but
I found your entry in the DQ/SQ debate very interesting. See you -
after 3 weeks approx.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST