To Roger:
>From Platt:
Thanks for you response to my questions. A couple of comments, and
more questions:
ROG:
'Awareness' I see as applying to living things. Webster's concurs.
Pirsig writes that only living things can perceive or adjust to dynamic
quality, so I assume I have no disagreement here with him either. The
Webster's definition of 'choice' includes preference, so I guess I can
live with that word applied to subatomic processes, though again I
think it would be better to say they ARE subatomic value patterns or
choices than to say they HAVE values or choices. As for 'sense,' I think
that this can be used metaphorically, but only at the risk that people will
misinterpret it to mean that electrons are discrete, living entities. To
stay clean, I would stick with 'values' or 'value patterns' and I would
avoid any of the above three terms. (I would also avoid the term
"morals" absent about a 468 page treatise explaining how it means
something WAY beyond conventional usage.)
PLATT:
You don’t like Pirsig stretching conventional usage of “morals.” In other
words, you flat out disagree with his no-holds-barred statement in Lila,
Chap. 7, as follows:
“Because Quality is morality. Make no mistake about it. They're
identical. And if Quality is the primary reality of the world then that
means morality is also the primary reality of the world. The world is
primarily a moral order. But it's a moral order that neither Rigel nor the
posing Victorians had ever, in their wildest dreams, thought about or
heard about.”
It seems to me (and of course I could be wrong) that by denying Pirsig
his extended use of the term “moral,” you deny a central tenant of his
metaphysics. You apparently do not accept that the levels, including the
inorganic, are “moral” levels. IMO that’s like denying the whole MOQ.
Your next statement also seems to deny a key MOQ principle.
ROG:
As for how these qualities mysteriously emerge out of elements that
lack them, I refer you to Lila or to any of a couple of dozen good books
on complexity. Simpler, less complex and versatile values can
combine together and interact to form substantially more dynamic and
versatile values with degrees of freedom that do not exist in the
underlying levels. Awareness is a sophisticated version of value
inherent in living things.
PLATT:
How life evolved from non-life as explained in Lila is in no way like
complexity theory which attributes the appearance of complex forms to
chance or accident. In the MOQ by contrast atoms and molecules
responded to a Dynamic force because what DQ offered was better,
i.e., it was morally right that they form life for greater freedom. Your
reference to complexity theory to explain evolution makes me suspect
you accept the conventional scientific view. I take it that as far as you’re
concerned, Chapter 11 in Lila can be pretty much ignored as
unscientific nonsense. In science there’s no motive for evolution. In the
MOQ, it was morally right for life (and us) to have evolved.
PLATT: (previously)
One final question. Do I detect a weakening of your confidence in the
MOQ over the years?
ROG:
I now see some minor shortcomings. His levels of values and the
potential conflicts that can arise between them were extremely
insightful concepts for me. However, it has become clear that he
grossly oversimplified some issues here, and this led to some
incorrect conclusions in both his model and his rational morality. (and
yes, I do have suggestions on how they can both be improved) I
mentioned some of my minor disagreements in our recent discussion
of fundamental MOQ tenets. Note that one of my running concerns has
been his sloppiness in getting terms like 'morality', redefining them
and then applying them 'backward' to subatomic values. Now you and
Jonathan and Marco are doing the same thing with "awareness."
Heck, if Pirsig does it, why shouldn't you? Because it is of LOW
QUALITY that's why!
PLATT:
I guess what puzzles me most is that you’ll accept “values” going back
to subatomic particles but not “morals.” All Pirsig is doing is extending
the meaning of morality to include not just human behavior but all
behavior, just as he extends the meaning of value to include not just
what is preferred by humans, but by all things great and small.
As I see it, quality, morals and values all come under the general
heading of “Some things are better than others.” And if I was asked to
sum up the MOQ in a sentence, that would be it.
So have I misinterpreted your beliefs? Have a misinterpreted the MOQ?
Where have I gone wrong?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:12 BST