I've been doing some writing mainly to get my thoughts
in order but welcome any critical suggestions about my
ideas. (It's a bit long... sorry)
The Metaphysics of Reality:
There is Reality, I’m not going into discussions of
whether there is an absolute reality or a number of
personal realities, my personal belief is that there
is some absolute reality of some form out there and
then at a personal level we individually have separate
interpretations of this one reality. This fits in
with the Metaphysics but the Metaphysics doesn’t
necessarily require this belief.
We can split reality into 2 major parts, dynamic and
static.
Static: I want to avoid adding a second word to this.
At most I would call it Static Patterns. Even Static
implies a bit heavily that it is not moving which is
not necessarily the case. Static Patterns are the
build up of reality in structures. This can fall
within some loose levels as defined by Pirsig.
Inorganic, Biological, Social, Intellectual. So an
inorganic static pattern can be as simple as a single
atom. It has a structure, it’s an item with
relatively consistent form and properties. Reality
with no static patterns would be void (perhaps the
probability mists of quantum physicists or the Void
and without light of the bible?). Or more complicated
inorganic static patterns such as proteins, planets,
solar systems etc. Biological Static Patterns are
plants and creatures, they have built up progressively
more complicated static patterns over time arguably by
processes such as evolution. Social static patterns
are things such as etiquette, laws, governmental
systems. And then we have intellectual patterns which
are things such as physics, maths, metaphysics. These
levels I believe are fairly arbitrarily created by
Pirsig and there is a lot of crossover and ambiguity
when trying to categorise some items. This has a
reason within Pirsig Metaphysics which I will
hopefully explain more fully below under Quality.
Dynamic: This is by definition indefinable.
Definitions are a static pattern (of the intellectual
kind) so while we can investigate Dynamic (Reality)
and define what we find we will always fail to define
dynamic (reality) because as soon as a definition is
created it is a static pattern, dynamic (reality) is
still completely undefined, it is now just arguably a
little bit smaller. So the best definition of Dynamic
(Reality) is that it is everything that is not static,
it is the unknown. At the intellectual level I have
my knowledge (Static) and then there is everything I
don’t know (Dynamic). At an inorganic level there are
all the atoms and the molecules that we understand and
conform to their static patterns but then there’s all
the crazy quantum stuff that they do which is dynamic
(from out perspective, when we learn and understand
more of the rules of quantum physics then there will
be more static patterns from our perspective).
So, how does it tie together. (for the sake of
simplicity we will focus on social and intellectual
patterns at the moment as they change over short
timescales and are easier to follow) We have the
process of learning. This falls into 2 main
categories. The most important is that we experience
Dynamic Reality and from that we create static
patterns of understanding. When I am born I have no
static patterns relating to Newtonian physics
(gravity, motion etc) but as a child I observe the
dynamic reality of things sitting on the floor and
things moving when I hit them and having weight when I
pick them up. Over time I begin to build static
patterns describing these processes and before you
know it I can use that knowledge to control them. I
learn to stand up, to throw a ball and hit a target,
to connect lego bricks together etc. Now things such
as the ground coming up to meet me when I fall over
are no longer a surprise (except when drunk) I have
static patterns and I expect these things to happen, I
stop experiencing these things at a dynamic level and
proceed through the world based on the assumptions of
my static patterns, only experiencing the dynamic
where something happens which is outside of my static
patterns (or experiences). The second way that we
build static patterns is by replication. This is
where, rather than experience dynamic reality we take
on static patterns from some other source that has
already done the experiencing. This is vital to the
continuing improvement as it provides a quick method
of learning what has already been discovered without
having to do the hard yards ourselves. At the
intellectual level this is exactly what our education
system does, rather than having to discover the
foundations of physics myself from scratch a teacher
provides materials and books that describe the static
patterns that have already been built on this topic, I
absorb those patterns and then to “make them real”
some experiments will be performed so that I can
experience the dynamic reality from which those
patterns are based, but these experiments are not
creating the patterns, they are proving them after I
have already learnt them. At the biological level we
inherit almost all of our static biological patterns
from our parents. We then modify those patterns
slightly because of dynamic reality, ie injuries,
moles, mutations etc, but we don’t have to build the
static patterns that make up a human from scratch, we
are handed them by our parents.
OK, Now we’ve established what reality is and the
basic process of building static patterns we should
look a bit closer at this process of building static
patterns from dynamic reality.
Dynamic reality is a big thing, we can’t take on board
every detail of dynamic reality and build static
patterns based on it. We also must interpret what
that dynamic reality is in order to convert it into a
static pattern. This process is critically important.
For example. As a child I learnt to move objects. I
built a static pattern that if I pushed an object with
my hand it would move. Now, how about if I
interpreted the dynamic reality of this situation
differently. Currently, I think about moving the
object, my hand reaches out and then the object moves.
My static pattern is that my hand moves the object
and the fact that I thought about moving the object is
coincidental and relates to other things. How about
if I interpreted it differently, what if my thinking
about moving the object moved the object and the fact
that my hand moved was unconnected to the results.
This is a silly example because the “wrong”
interpretation quickly is disproved when I think about
moving the object, don’t move my hand, and the object
doesn’t move. But history is ripe with these sort of
misinterpretations of dynamic reality. The leader of
our country is a god and makes the sun rise and set.
We have a leader, the sun rises and sets, this static
pattern seems to bear up under scrutiny. But modern
static patterns tell us it’s wrong. The other side is
what we choose to interpret. Dynamic reality is full
of a multitude of things happening all the time, some
of those things are useful and worth pursuing and some
of them aren’t. We must be always making a choice
about what to investigate and build static patterns
from. If I wanted to I could spend weeks expanding my
knowledge of a glass of water, at the end of the
process I could have learnt many things, but is that
the most effective use of my time, maybe I’d be better
off going outside and looking at waterfalls or plants…
this is a choice I must make.
So, then how do we make this choice and how do we make
our interpretations of our dynamic experiences.
First an analogy from the realm of biological static
patterns. Evolution. A biological entity is a build
up of static biological patterns. Within this
structure there is a method of copying the static
patterns forwards to the next generation (ie sexual
reproduction) but within this method there is also a
means by which dynamic biological changes can be made
to the static patterns. Mutation can occur, this
means the next generation is different from the
previous. So, on the choice of which static patterns
to take forwards the choice is made by the animals
choice of mate. The choice will be made on a number
of factors, different for each species but includes
things such as size of the male, plumage, prowess at
battle etc. Then, the second part mutation will
provide an added diversity to the next generation
based on dynamic factors. But these mutations are in
general neither good nor bad within a given range
(beyond that range they are usually bad and result in
death). So how is this addressed to attempt to
provide an improvement in static patterns rather than
just a random diversifying which in itself will not
really improve matters. By the process of natural
selection. Every so often an event will take place
where only the best equipped to survive the event will
survive. This means out of all the diverse mutations
only the ones that have provided some beneficial means
to surviving the event will be carried forwards in the
population in general. This does not necessarily mean
that the traits coming forward are the best traits on
any particular scale, they are merely the best within
the confines of a specific event or need. In general
this has worked quite well although there are a number
of species and traits that have arisen that do not
really hold an obvious usefulness. Eg Plumage on
birds, although nice to look at quite a lot of male
bird plumage is not remotely useful and often is quite
ungainly, Pandas, they should eat meat but they
instead eat plants, the species can still survive but
it’s hold is very tenuous mainly because of this
evolutionary move which has rather tenuous benefits.
I want to with that analogy in mind try to examine
where any basis of interpretation and choice of
dynamic reality can come from. I would argue that
this interpretation must be based on the static
patterns already in place. Void, or a total lack of
static patterns in any form has no ability to
interpret itself so can not become anything more than
Void. If we look back at our analogy above we have
two things at play, sexual reproduction (including
mutation) and survival of the fittest. These two
things are both direct results of the existing static
patterns. Without all the static biological patterns
creating sperm, eggs etc then sexual reproduction
wouldn’t occur. Additionally sexual reproduction and
mutation occur within a very defined framework. While
you might get a child with webbed feet from a parent
without due to mutation you are not going to get a
child cat from a parent dog due to mutation, the
static patterns will not allow it. Also the survival
of the fittest, this is based on static patterns
defining the inorganic and biological environment
inwhich colonies of creatures exist. A survival event
may be a meteor strike, or an ice age, these are build
ups of static patterns that can only occur within the
framework already defined by our environment and the
laws of physics. A survival event is unlikely to be
purely dynamic such as the world turning into a giant
green jelly. Intellectual and Social interpretation
is much the same. Modern thinking can only be done
after the framework of modern static patterns have
been learnt. In past civilisations where there was a
much less evolved static framework myths and legends
arose to explain things which modern thought would
describe as wrong. Eg the sun rises because the
leader of our country makes it rise. We now know that
it is because of physics but this is only because we
have built the framework of physics upon which we can
know this.
The next area I want to look at is modern science and
the Subject Object Metaphysics. This is the
Metaphysics that brought Pirsig to the point of
developing the Metaphysics of Quality in the first
place due to some shortfalls in SOM approaches. SOM
basically says that everything has a subject and an
object upon which it acts. Another important rule is
that of objectivity. This is the scientific approach,
if the test results don’t stand up under objective
scrutiny then it is wrong. This is a very valid
approach to use within the scientific world and
provides an excellent framework upon which to discover
and deduce new things. Within my metaphysics SOM is a
set of static patterns which provide the major basis
for the choice and interpretation of dynamic reality.
The problem with SOM and Pirsig’s main issue with it
is that it has extended beyond purely scientific areas
to be a major portion of the social patterns that we
have. The downside of this is that SOM is firmly
based on “objectivity” which has no basis for moral
choices. In a totally objective world a lot of people
will become disillusioned because of the lack of
meaningfulness in their lives (which seems to be a
major issue in modern society).
So we come to Prisig’s idea. Quality. He defined
reality as being quality so there was some innate
quality within reality which we can look at and choose
the best interpretations of dynamic reality purely by
opening ourselves up to these quality values that are
innate within dynamic reality. I tend to disagree,
reality is just reality, it doesn’t innately have
quality we must ascertain quality for ourselves based
upon the static patterns we have built up. In the
evolution example above Pirsig would answer that the
fact that the process did achieve some gains was due
to the innate quality but the process has quite solid
groundings in the forms of static patterns that cause
it and the gains it creates are not an absolute
improvement of quality, they are an improvement only
for specific tasks within specific parameters. In
fact it is tenuous to say that an absolute quality
exists. In many situations a person can make a clear
judgement on what is of higher quality between two
items, but a different person would make a completely
different choice. When you are studying something
that you are unfamiliar with you will have a hard time
judging what is better or worse within that category
as you have few static patterns upon which to make
those judgements. For example when you start drinking
wine, it’s very hard to pick a good wine from a bad
wine, the main distinguisher is flavour but in terms
of food flavours for which you are familiar. As you
become accustomed to wine and learn the flavours,
quality and results of drinking various wines then
judging a good wine versus a bad wine becomes
relatively easy. If Pirsig’s absolute Quality existed
then some one who held themselves more in the dynamic
and could view genuine quality would have an instant
appreciation for good wines which is not the case.
Pirsig also used quality for the basis of making a
moral choice, this is a good thing because it
re-introduces morals into the metaphysical world. His
morals were based on the fact that if you were
replacing a pattern of a lower evolutionary form with
one that is more evolved then doing so is the moral
decision to make. This is where Pirsig brought his
levels into play. Because Social levels only come
into play after a biological level is established then
social static patterns are clearly more evolved than
biological ones. Because intellectual patterns (which
have only really come into the fore in relatively
recent times) came after social ones they are of a
higher evolutionary level then social patterns.
Therefore if you have to make the choice between an
intellectual pattern (freedom) and a social pattern
(etiquette) the intellectual pattern should always win
since it is clearly more evolved because it’s
intellectual not social. I don’t think this
necessarily holds true as a basis for morals. I like
the thought of more evolved static patterns being of
better moral value, it’s the levels that are more of a
sticking point. In the biological world we have
humans and then we have cats. One of these things is
much more complicated so many would say that humans
are more evolved. But really humans and cats have
been evolving for the same length of time, they are
both just as evolved but they are differently evolved.
So the moral choice should not always favour the
human over the cat. It’s the same with freedom vs
etiquette. If a new static pattern comes along that
is in conflict between these two then it shouldn’t
automatically favour the intellectual, it should be
preferable to any parts of the social level which it
is more evolved than and any parts of the intellectual
level that it is more evolved than.
So, in rough conclusion I think the important thing to
take from those last sections is that within the
Metaphysics our task is to keep looking into dynamic
reality and improving our static patterns. Our
process of doing this is through a filter caused by
our static patterns. This filter in recent times has
been the filter of objectivity from science and the
SOM. Pirsig puts forwards that the filter should be
Quality and based upon moral decisions. This is a
very good filter but along the way there are many
judgements that we will have to make about which
static patterns are more moral than which other static
patterns. Some times our old patterns will be better,
often hopefully our new static patterns that we are
building from the dynamic reality will be better. We
just need to strive for the new, better patterns. The
biggest risk of modern life is to get bogged down in
the old comfortable static patterns that we have and
to lose sight of the dynamic reality for which we
should strive.
A final note on Zen philosophy. I admit I don’t know
much about this but the rough understanding I have is
that the goal of Zen is to discard all the unnecessary
paraphernalia of this world and reach a state of
oneness with nothing. This within the Metaphysics is
trying to discard all static patterns of the mind.
This is not however trying to be in the dynamic. If
you are heavily in the dynamic reality then you will
be building static patterns very quickly, I think what
Zen is, is trying to discard all the static patterns
while keeping focused beyond the dynamic reality in
order to reach a state with no connectedness to
reality whether static or dynamic, this is the
nothingness that they preach (maybe).
Anyway, just some thoughts mainly to get my ideas in
some semblance of order.
Dave
____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk
or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
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 - 16:01:34 BST