clark (clark@netsites.net)
Sun, 26 Jul 1998 03:50:52 +0100
Platt, Diana and Squad,
Have been reading your 25 July exchange with pleasure. I may just be
slow but this illustrates why I think it would be helpful to focus in on
how Pirsig arrived at and expresses his concepts. Discussions for later
in our investigation.
Diana, your concept of DQ and SQ and their relationship seems to be
similar to mine. Quality is reality. SQ is our current apprehension of
reality. DQ is the general direction of the impetus given to our
unconscious selection of what becomes SQ from our ongoing fields of
awareness by our current state of SQ (understanding of reality). These
influences include all of our inputs from any source be they aesthetic
or scientific. Overall, nothing is SOM although science may be
considered to be SOM in the intellectual level. The trend of the
interactions between SQ and DQ will be toward higher morality.
Similar interactions occur in and during the non-sentient phase of the
universe only this time instead of calling the bridge of the growth of
morality between SQ and DQ awareness I call it possibility.
Here is where I need some help. I t seems to me that the two thrusts
toward higher morality are different. Non-sentient morality will be
whatever is in accordance with the proper functioning and growth of
information content of the universe. Sentient morality will also be that
but with the addition of the perceived advance of morality being
influenced by sentience. In other words, I can see where the two
morality thrusts may diverge from time to time because we may not have
enough information of judge what is the higher morality in a given
situation. Are there properly two definitions of morality or should we
discard non-sentient morality and just focus on sentient morality or
should I just assume that we will be intelligent enough to always see
when there is a conflict between us and the universe? I get no guidance
from Pirsig even though he gives examples from both cases. Any thoughts
on this anybody or should I just shut up and concentrate on my own
individual morality? Maybe immorality would be more fun. I am genuinely
puzzled by what I perceive to be a conflict. I hope this makes sense. It
does to me. Ken
-- 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 - 16:43:29 CEST