Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Mon, 20 Jul 1998 20:24:56 +0100
On Sat, 18 Jul 1998, clark wrote:
> Lila Squad,
> Just finished reading through the 150 or so messages I found waiting
> for me when I got back from the other aspect of vacation and such a
> wholesale gulp has strengthened my impression that the problem we are
> having is that most of us are misinterpreting Pirsig. We are trying to
> interpret his "Good, Better, Morality, etc from the human viewpoint
> whereas I think these ideas should be viewed from the viewpoint of the
> physical universe. He does not use this term but I think a more
> descriptive phrase for Dynamic Quality would be "The force for greater
> information content".
I have some problems w/ this that I'd like to share.
One approch would be to translate what you're saying into
Pirsig-speak and thus show you that it's not quite MoQ. I hesitate to do
this because it doesn't say that your ideas are wrong or bad... just that
they are different, but... well, one must start someplace.
What you seem to be saying is: Inorganic values are usually in
conflict w/ Social PoVs -- or maybe you're saying, inorganic values
usually conflict w/ organic ones... or conflict w/ both organic and
social.
Well, Pirsig does recognise this. He admits it. But where you seem
to want to give priority to Inorganic values because they are much, much
older, Pirsig gives priority to (in turn) Organic values, Social values,
and (penultimatly) Intellectual values (w/ HIGHEST PRIORITY given to
whatever next, more dynamic type of SQ might evolve out of Int. PoVs)
because they are 'more evolved' (of higher quality, more dynamic, etc.).
Each level depends upon the layers bellow (really "before" --
"the levels which pre-date") it for it's continued existence, and, yes,
w/o the InOrgPoVs (quanta, atoms, gravaty, stars, worm
holes...SPACE-TIME!) you couldn't have ANY of the other values. But,
acording to Pirsig, in every respect other than that the "higher," more
evolved, more dynamic values/moral patterns are president. When they
clash, the higher value is the more moral and should win-out. So basic to
Pirsig is: The "American Way" is more important than the eco system or the
field of space-time w/ all its forces and quarks! Obviously if we don't
have a sound eco-system or, say, our sun goes out, well, then the
"American Way" is dead, so "Screw Ecology!" is not a message of the MoQ.
Yes, the InOrg values have been around a hell of a lot longer, and
yes they are more perminant, more *preduring*... the laws of physics and
chemistry don't, so far as I know, change very much. They are quite...
what's a good word?... static. Compared to the Inorg. universe,
biological patterns change real damn fast... but when compared to the rise
and fall of societies (Mesopotania, Classica Greece, the Roman Empire,
Mideval Feudalism...) species evolve and eco-systems change (on their own
anyway) very, very slowly. Intellectual patterns? Well, ask anyone.
Science is *constantly* transforming its views. IntPoVs are pretty
ephimeral while (at the other end of the spectrum) InorgPoVs are very
solid, very preduring.
Humm... Now I wonder what we can make of that pattern? It seems
that the universe (and I don't just mean the Inorg. part of the universe)
is "evolving" from static towards dyanmic. From rigid to flexable. Let's
look w/in the "layers" and see if the pattern holds:
Well, Nazi-ism... Now that's not a very flexable position. Not
very open to new ideas. I mean, they lost the bomb because they refused to
persue "Jewish science," and loosing the bomb, one also looses all the
benifetial "spin-off" technologies from it such as clean (comparativly)
energy. Contrast: America's ideal of being a cultural "melting pot" for
all people, ethnicities, ideas, religions... More flexable? Yes,
certainly. More moral then? Pirsig indicates so.
One could characterise the MoQ view as "the pencile is mightyer
than the pen... it has an eraser."
Ken, I see your view that the Inorg. values are the highest ones
as actually being an *inverse* view of Pirsig's. Now, like I said, that
doesn't make you wrong; you might be right (better, more moral) and Pirsig
wrong. But do you (a) agree w/ my interpritation of the MoQ as presented
in LILA, and (b) agree that your view is pretty different from it?
"God vs. man. Man vs. God. Man vs. nature. Nature vs. man. God vs.
nature. Nature vs. God. Very funny religion!"
-- D.T. Suzuki (Zen Buddhist)
Confessing his inability to understand
Western monotheism.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:28 CEST