Hello everyone
>From: "Jonathan B. Marder" <jonathan.marder@newmail.net>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: Re: MD Back on topic
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 13:06:35 +0300
>
>Dear Dan, Roger, Platt, Andrea and all,
>
>This has been a great week for the MoQ, and you may wonder why I've been so
>quiet.
>
>The "excuse" has been lack of time to write, but the real reason is that
>Dan
>"got me good".
Hi Jonathan
Please accept my apology for my last post. I really didn't set out to "get
you good" and after I sent it off I immediately wished I could find that
elusive "unsend" button.
>
> > JONATHAN to DAN
> > >Where do you get the idea that societies
> > >can't
> > >respond to Dynamic Quality? Wasn't the Zuni story about just that?
>Aren't
> > >Platt's and Roger's arguments in support of the free market about
>society
> > >remaining dynamic?
> >
>
>DAN's reply
> > From Lila, of course:
> >
> > "And beyond that is an even more compelling reason: societies and
>thoughts
> > and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns.
>These
> > patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only
>a
> > living being can do that." (pg. 185 Bantam paperback)
> >
>
>That's a good hit Dan - gave me a lot to think about. At first I was angry
>at
>Pirsig - "what a stupid thing to write," I thought. Rather than concede
>Dan's
>home run, I decided to think about it a bit more philosophically (isn't
>that
>what we are here for?).
Thank you Jonathan but Wim correctly pointed out you were right too in
stating the Constitution and Bill of Rights is geared towards the miliary
and police. I have to admit the particular quote Wim offered took me by
surprise and that doesn't happen to me often any more when it comes to
Pirsig's writings. My conjecture on the right to bear arms being Dynamic is
just that, a conjecture unsupported by Lila.
>
>Let me start with my "disappointment" at Pirsig.
>ROGER describes each of
>Pirsig's novels as a
> >mystical journey
>What I now realise is that Lila and ZAMM are quite different:
>ZAMM is a journey that really takes you somewhere. In contrast, Lila is a
>shopping trip. Maybe a better metaphor is ZAMM as a gourmet meal and Lila
>as a
>shopping trolley (shopping cart to you Americans). There are certainly some
>great ingredients in the trolley, but they need to be cleaned, peeled,
>sorted,
>diced, blended, poached, grilled etc., etc. I get the feeling that Pirsig
>put
>out Lila under some sort of pressure or obligation to give his readers a
>second novel.
I too love ZMM but I have paid Lila the more attention over the years. I
cannot presume to know why Robert Pirsig felt the need to write a second
book but I for one am glad he did. There is a different feeling to his
second book and part of that feeling (I think) is Phaedrus seeing himself as
a success (the Great Author) instead of the failure he saw himself as in
ZMM. In my case I can identify with the failure much more readily than I can
the success and I think that's true of most people. I don't identify with
the Phaedrus of Lila like I identify with the Phaedrus of ZMM. But then
again how many of us can buy a boat and sail around the world picking up
barmaids? :)
>
>Roger, Platt, you are partly right:
> >Pirsig leaves us on our own . . .
>
>What he has done is some very successful and discriminating shopping, but
>he
>has left the cooking to us . . .
>
>Now we can peel open Pirsig's statement . . .
>I think that Pirsig's portrayal of static patterns as non-responsive
>contradicts other things he has written. The whole existence of a static
>pattern is in reference to the dynamic, so the static pattern *IS* a
>response
>to the dynamic. I also note that every static pattern encompasses a degree
>of
>dynamism in the things it "allows" to vary. The pattern called the River
>Ganges "allows" endless water molecules to flow freely and dynamically
>through, but the pattern is maintained NO MATTER WHICH particular molecules
>are in the river at any time. Thus, Hindus can and DO enter the same river
>twice. Each human is unique, yet the pattern of the human being ALLOWS for
>an
>infinity of differences.
I often marvel the differences between us are not greater than they seem but
really why should they be? Though we each go our own way we all
instinctively react to Quality once we perceive it.
>
>Thus, if we are going to use Pirsig's statement in our recipe, I think that
>the better part of the ingredient is this:
>When he talks about "living being", he is not talking about a pattern of
>quality at any level - not inorganic, not organic, not social and not
>intellectual. He is talking about something that is more than all of those
>put
>together. Furthermore, I think Pirsig is not talking about just any living
>being but about MAN. He is telling us YET AGAIN that "man is the measure".
>
>In his superbly brilliant post of 18th June,
>ANDREA presents this as a fundamental moral issue:
> >to be a "full" human being, you will have to use
> >your own head rather than social conventions to take
> >your own moral decisions. And be ready, because it
> >*may* happen, too, that your own
> >head puts you *against* the society you live in.
>
>Bravo! Andrea deftly demolishes the defence of every war criminal who ever
>claimed he was "just following orders".
>
>"Man is the measure" is the heart and sole of the Quality idea. It's so
>simple
>an idea that even a small child can understand it . . . . . .
>
>. . . . . . but it can be cooked up in astounding and sophisticated recipes
>worthy of the greatest chefs.
Well said.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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 - 16:01:22 BST