Re: LS Power and the MOQ

From: Jason McKague (jmckague@sunsetdirect.com)
Date: Tue Apr 06 1999 - 21:49:39 BST


Kevin,
It is nice to see that my messages are read. You were correct - our
positions seem to be at complete odds.
I don't have too much time, so I will briefly address a few things.

I. In response to:
I think this analogy is fundamentally flawed. Competition and cooperation
>don't equate with dynamic and static - rather both are simply social
>structures. ........... etc...., I have this to say:
You have missed the mark in many ways. For starters (accepting your
postition that comp. and coop. do not, in fact, equate to "D." and "S.")
competition and cooperation are still by no means limited to social
understanding (or to use Pirsig's terminology, "social static patterns of
quality"). Clearly these are terms that imply conscious, or human, behavior
but are not exclusively limited to human actions. Plants and animals
compete for things such as food and sunlight without giving it a second's
"thought". In other words, competition is close to dynamic quality itself
within a biological framework. "Competition" and "cooperation" are in no
way exclusively social concepts.

II. A second objection I have with what you've said is that yours is
ultimately a socialist or communistic position. This should be no surprise
to you as this is forthright. Also, I am not saying whether this is "good"
or "bad", but this is at odds with Pirsig's view (after all, this forum is
to better understand issues within a MOQ context, right?). Pirsig makes it
absolutely clear that individual ideas are of higher value than social ideas
(this is simply a restatement of a portion of his MOQ/ethics - within the
larger quality-structure/hierarchy intellectual quality is of higher
importance than social quality). Towards the end of Lila, Pirsig embarks on
a few age-old ethical questions and shows how the MOQ would treat them. One
is the death penalty. He argues that this is wrong (or immoral) in a
two-fold way. For starters, it would be a lower structure (society)
devouring a higher one (intellect) and, as such, immoral. Secondly, he
argues that by killing a person, one is killing an idea (this is actually
the previous in a different wording), and that it is always immoral to
restrict an idea. Social force or laws are boud within the social order;
ideas are purely intellectual and of higher value.
Now, back to my original assertion - a) that your position sounds heavily
socialistic, and b) that this misses the mark when discussing Pirsig's MOQ.

If we unite together, we change things - when we compete against one
>another, we use all the positive energy we could use for dynamic change,
>beating each other

Unite together for what? The unfortunate presupposition is that everyone
has the same end goals. Way too ideal and of no realistic use. There has
always been and always will be inevitable (constuctive, I might add)
tensions that exist at all levels of society. Celebrity, politics,
international relations, etc. This tension (and Pirsig says this almost
verbatum) is what gives rise to growth.

III. I think we can break power up into Dynamic power and static power. The
>"gumption" you talk about is intellectual power and to get out of "gumption
>traps" we apply Dynamic power. Instead of the "capacity to do work," I
>would define power as the "capacity to do Quality" or the "capacity to
>value Quality."

Isn't it an implication made by Pirsig that EVERYONE has your "power"
(capacity to do quality)? (Once again, refer to ZAMM and the discussion of
GUmption.) Surely some people aren't simply excluded from the 'class of
people who can achieve high quality situations/states.' This of course
doesn't mean that everyone in fact does achieve this, but everyone COULD.
If everyone does have this "power", then of what use is the word? Or, more
specifically, whysubdivide it into classes? "power" seems to be a
hinderance to this forum. Please help me better understand this.

Jason

MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:40 GMT