Jonathan B. Marder (marder@agri.huji.ac.il)
Thu, 30 Jul 1998 18:36:51 +0100
Hi Ken, Maggie, pstira@escape.com, Diana, Squad,
Ken CLARK wrote:-
>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
[snip]
It comes down to whether or not the patterns of which SQ is made have
absolute existence. Almost since the beginning of my participation in
the LS
I have argued that patterns have no existence unless they are perceived.
To put it in the context of the dialogue between Maggie and
pstira@escape.com (whoever you are), patterns have no existence unless
they have perceived quality.
MAGGIE:-
>> Don't you think there is a lot of existing SQ that cannot be defined,
>> analyzed and subjected to rational tests?
>>
>> I'm thinking of
>>* all kinds of patterns that have evolved over time that haven't been
>> noticed
>>* patterns we don't know how to notice,
>>* patterns that people (intellect) don't value (and therefore cannot
>> define) but WOULD be valued by biology or the social level
pstira@escape.com answered:-
>I think these three things all equate to "patterns that people don't
>value" (ie, lack Quality).
>
>According to Pirsig, what does NOT exist is precisely that which lacks
>Quality.
[snip]
back to Ken CLARK:-
>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.
On this I have to concede. What I meant was that to use SQ to predict
the outcome of some future observation does not make the expected result
happen. What you are right about is that the SQ patterns we base our
reality on predisposes us to be receptive to particular things. This is
where the morality bit comes in - making sure we are properly receptive.
This said, it is obvious that "receptiveness" or "sensitivity" (a nice
morality word there!) is by necessity selective.
DIANA wrote:
[snip]
>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.
Please can you explain on what basis you measure the "level" of DQ. For
that, you need a definition of DQ which makes it measurable.
>> 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.
>
You can put it down to my own lack of comprehension, but Pirsig never
explained the point to my satisfaction.
[snip]
>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.
With respect, my understanding of Hinduism differs. Hinduism regards
Lila as a conjuring trick and apparent reality (Maya) as the illusion
which results. Pirsig rejects this mystical view and casts reality
within DQ and SQ.
Regards,
Jonathan
-- 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