clark (clark@netsites.net)
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 16:41:31 +0100
Jonathan, Horse, Diana, Sojourner and LS,
Your discussions are fascinating and very informative.
Jonathan, I agree with ALMOST everything you say. Your concept of DQ
and
SQ agrees with my thinking on the question except that you put it more
clearly than I have succeeded is doing so far.
In my opinion Horse's interpretation of DQ as being of higher morality
than SQ illustrates the problem that Pirsig was facing in trying to get
his
ideas across in one go. My interpretation is that Pirsig was trying to
make
the point, as Jonathan says, that DQ is the ground, (the genesis) of all
morality (value) because it is the interpreter of our current states of
SQ
on our current fields of awareness. Our individual SQs are the result of
the stimulus that this SQ state puts upon DQ to further inform our
current
SQs. Therefore, DQ is only of higher morality in the sense that it is
the
synthesizer of our current SQs from our fields of awareness.
The point at which I start to disagree with Jonathan is when he says
that
we are morally obliged to be receptive to DQ. If SQ and DQ are the
builders
of the universe as we understand it today then before humanity evolved
there could have been no moral obligation for DQ to be receptive to SQ.
SQ
and DQ would have been linked inescapably with DQ having no choice but
to
obey the dictates of SQ input. Thus the buildup of moral information in
the
universe.
If we now take up the nazi situation, we can see that the proper
non-sentient response would have been that of Ghandi. Let it go and be
just
another temporary setback on the road to greater morality (information
content).
If we admit sentience into the equation then we see that we have a
choice
in the response of SQ. We can take the non-sentient response, accept it
and
let morality increase naturally, or we can take the sentient response,
oppose it and thus steer morality more quickly in the direction that we
perceive to be correct.. I think in this case the proper response was
taken.
However, my point is that with sentience in the picture it becomes
possible to alter the course of the growth of morality, probably without
enough information to be certain what the proper course is in all cases.
You can say, and probably correctly, that this is an arbitrary
division
of SQ and DQ which is not justified. The point I am making is that we
now
are in a position to recognize the difference in choices that are
available
to us. Under these changed conditions should we just go with the flow
and
let DQ and SQ interact normally or would the higher morality be to
interfere with the interaction of SQ and DQ to achieve those moral
directions that we perceive to be correct, even though lack of a
complete
understanding may render us incapable of taking the most moral direction
in
a given situation.
Jonathan's interpretation is obviously that our current concept of
morality is the human concept and this is probably the correct
interpretation. However it does not argue favorably for the immediate
human
situation although it is probably the correct one for the long term.
Jonathan suggests that DQ cannot be suppressed or altered by SQ. If DQ
results from our total fields of awareness then SQ can, it seems to me,
have an effect on the selections of awareness that DQ presents for
conversion to SQ. I think and I can change my mind or be influenced by
others, therefore I can alter the field of awareness presented to DQ.
Also, if Pirsig's "many truths" concept is correct who will make those
moral choices for us that lie outside the ken of politics. If we accept
the
"many truths" idea then is seems to me that we have no choice but to
stumble from pillar to post gradually, very gradually, advancing in
morality. I can see that Pirsig's MOQ concept provides an overarching
view
that makes for a more satisfying picture of our place in the universe
but
in the light of the "many truths" idea I can't see that it is going to
provide us with a completely moral universe that we can celebrate this
New
Years Eve. Wouldn't it be nice if everyone in the world was a Pirsig
fan.
Looking forward to your thoughts. 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