Platt, (but also Jonathan, Roger, Andrea)
I'm in general agreement with your latest post.
PLATT:
While Pirsig doesn't come right out and say that Quality forces are
comparable to other physical forces, I think the implication that they are
*natural* (built into the fabric of the universe) is clear. And while the
majority scientific opinion is that the forces of chance along with the
urge to survive account for evolution, Pirsig says no, it’s Dynamic
Quality doing the work.
I think you are correctly interpreting Pirsig. The quotes you selected from
Lila bear this out. His Quality forces are indeed supernatural. The
comparisons with physical forces are valid in that both seem to be built
into the fabric of nature and neither are composed of substance. DQ is, of
course, supposed to be the mother of these physical forces. DQ is also
clearly a thing, a directed force toward betterness.
As an aside, I think one would be straying from Pirsig's notion of
DQ if it were interpreted as a process that begets betterness, such
as "natural selection" or the "scientific method".
DQ is supposed to be the driving inspiration of these processes but not the
processes themselves. Might I suggest, to avoid the usual SOM traps,
we change the name "natural selection" to "supernatural selection" and
the "scientific method" to the "pseudoscientific method", to stress what
I believe the MOQ says underpins them.
A few quibbles:
In your first post you said "for every scientist you can name who agrees
with Gould I can name one who disagrees", and yet here you say his is the
"majority scientific opinion". Well which is it?
I think you should replace "the urge to survive" with "natural selection".
The urge to survive is one of those traits that has been selected.
You are putting the cart before the horse if you are trying to state the
opinion of the majority here.
PLATT:
My point would be that if you don't agree with Pirsig's explanation of
evolution, you cannot agree with his Metaphysics since it is built on his
idea of moral forces creating reality, including beetles, horseshoe
crabs and finally, thank God, us. (-:
Spot on again, Platt. If someone doesn't believe DQ is actively directing
evolution, he's truly kidding himself if he also claims to believe in
the MOQ. The wide breadth of interpretation people attribute to Pirsig's
ideas always surprises me.
PIRSIG: (ch. 11)
There is no quarrel whatsoever between the Metaphysics of Quality and the
Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
Neither is there a quarrel between the Metaphysics of Quality and the
"teleological" theories which insist that life has some purpose.
The second line is clearly true. The first line isn't clearly true. In fact
it seems to be false, considering the quotes Platt has found throughout Lila
and considering what we know about the majority's view of natural selection,
which states that random processes are responsible for new traits in genes. It
seems inconsistent to have any random event be acceptable within an MOQ belief
system, as DQ is the "source for all things", and that source is moral, not
random. It seems Pirsig did not examine or understand this issue deeply enough
when he wrote this or in his exuberance for acceptance he tried to appeal to
all camps.
Glenn
__________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:21 BST