diana@asiantravel.com
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 15:33:48 +0100
Jonathan, Horse and squad,
Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
> HORSE:-
> >The point I was making was that, according to Pirsig, DQ is of the
> >highest value - higher than IntPoV - and as such where Intellect
> >attempts to deliberately suppress DQ, __for its own purposes__ ,
> >then this is apparently immoral. (In some ways I agree - as with the
> >issue of censorship and intellectual rights - see my posts to Platt).
> >
> >This raises some interesting issues within the value as morality
> >debate. If DQ is of higher value than SQ, then is a Quality Event
> >(DQ) at the level of Social patterns of higher value (morality) than
> >SQ at the Intellectual level.
>
> I believe it incorrect to talk about DQ at a particular level. Rather,
> we are talking about manifestations of DQ which are themselves SQ.
I think how Pirsig wrote it is that all patterns are either more or less
dynamic or static compared to other patterns. No matter how dynamic a
social experience may be, the intellect is a higher moral pattern and
therefore more dynamic.
> However, I still think there is a problem. If suppression of DQ is
> immoral, then how can "static latching" have any moral value?
I've been worrying about this for months. The answer would seem to be
that static latching can lead to even higher levels of DQ. Because it
facilitates higher moral value it has high moral value itself.
> Just this instant a very clear thought came to me. What SOM is after is
> just this. The "objective" observer must not alter the object - can only
> observe. We know this "ideal" to be highly problematic. MoQ may have
> achieved this ideal in a different way. DQ is fundamental - cannot be
> changed or altered. The only thing that is variable is *how* DQ is
> interpreted in SQ.
>
> Thus Pirsig's talking about DQ having "morality" which superceeds SQ
> morailty, could be a throw-away line.
Perhaps you could elaborate on this. He doesn't just say it once, he
says it over and over again. I can't believe he didn't think it through.
> DIANA writes:-
> [snip]
> >What Pirsig adds to this is a moral structure, namely that DQ is the
> >highest moral value. The Hinudus say this too, but unlike the Hindus,
> he
> >insists that SQ is moral too and defines four levels of it.
> >
> >And, as you pointed out, he shows how DQ is a part of everyday life
> >which is something that both the Hindus and the Western scientific
> >realityists miss.
>
> As Diana so rightly pointed out, SQ is the same as Hinduism's "Maya".
> Both are a product of DQ, (Hinduism's Lila, the "play" of Brahman).
> But Maya is illusion - false reality. The "true" reality is to be
> achieved in mysticism.
> The objective reality of the Greeks is also not the absolute (the
> "true"), but a good approximation of it achieved by observation and
> rational thought.
> Pirsig differs from both. He makes no reference to an abstract absolute.
Right. That's why I'm suspicious of attempts to make DQ the absolute or
the Truth. Pirsig rejected the Hindu idea that static patterns are
illusion and that DQ is the 'real' reality. He says that they both
exist. The only difference is that DQ is better. DQ isn't the truth any
more than any single static pattern is the truth.
Diana
-- 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