Roger, Marco and others,
ROG:
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction, decay
and disorder don't?
This seems a good question to me, since Pirsig was clearly unable to answer
it except by suggesting it should become clear in a hundred years time. This
suggests to me that Pirsig has not studied history, because what would
happen would be that in a hundred years time there would have evolved
several different schools of opinion, as to whether or not quality had
emerged in the original event, with no more clarity, though plenty more
suggestions, than there had been at the time.
More seriously, I take this to be an absolutely crucial question for those
working on themselves, which is an activity Pirsig appeared to support.
Because this question actually challenges one of Pirsig's early postulates;
that we all recognise quality when we see it. For if there is no observable
difference between high quality and destructive patterns, then we cannot
recognise quality, at least as I view it. Or rather, we are unable to
separate high from low quality patterns.
My answer, as of now, is clearly heavily influenced by Wilber. In some
endnotes to his big book, 'Sex, Ecology, Spirituality', Wilber talks about
the BMI, the basic moral intuition, which he plans to write about in a
future volume. The BMI is a human intuition, hence relates to "patterns of
higher quality". He postulates that all humans intuit a moral imperative,
"Protect and promote the greatest depth for the greatest span". (SES p 613)
This formula applies at each level of human development, but since each
level is open to different inputs, the outcomes differ significantly,
depending upon the level of the person involved. So at the egocentric level,
for example, where only the self is of real interest, we get the typical
warrior ethic. (Would it be rude to see this dominating much debate in this
forum?) At the sociocentric level, where depth is also acknowledged to exist
in others, but only those in my group, we end up with the typical duty
ethic. At the worldcentric rational level, depth extends to all human
beings, and span includes the whole human race. (At this level the BMI is
often stated as 'Promote the greatest happiness of the greatest numbers',
which ignores different types of happiness, or levels of depth of happiness,
so this level is unable to handle questions about whether it is better to be
an unhappy Socrates or a contented pig.) "In the transpersonal domains, the
BMI unfolds as Buddha (I), Dharma (It), and Sangha (We), and the ultimate
Sangha is the community of all sentient beings as such." (SES p 614)
Wilber says "I believe we all intuit Spirit to one degree or another, and
thus we all possess the Basic Moral Intuition; but we unfold that intuition
only at our present level of development." (SES p 614) Wilber further argues
that any intuition of Spirit manifests in at least three domains, the
subjective (I), the intersubjective (We) and the objective (it). (Wilber
bashers usually assume that this proves Wilber's SOM status. If they
bothered to read him they would find no such thing, but here is not the time
to argue that case.) What Wilber is arging is that it is not enough to
intuit the preciousness of spirit in myself, but also to value the spirit as
it unfolds in others, and to implement this spiritual unfolding in as many
beings as possible, that is in the objective world.
Wilber is at pains to point out that how we implement the BMI depends on our
social involvement, and can only be worked out "in open communication, free
of domination", through discussion and decision.
I think this model has obvious applicability to the question of how we
discriminate higher quality patterns. I will put this as numbered points.
1. While all humans feel the lure of quality, this is interpreted through
their present level of development.
2. What is of 'higher' quality for one person is simply a nonsense to
someone at a lower level of development, for at their lower level it is
simply not possible to make sense of the data accessible to someone at a
higher level.
3. While we may experience the same lure towards quality, differences
in our social backgrounds will cause us to derive different solutions to any
particular issue in which we seek to discern quality. (Compare this with
Pirsig's more limited understanding that differences in our previous
experience will cause us to vary in our perception of quality.)
4. Since our social conditioning may be altered through education, where
more than one person is involved in seeking to discern quality, open
discussion, without domination, may lead to a better consensus.
5. However, where persons involved in such a discussion are at different
levels of development, no amount of discussion will bridge the different
perceptions of quality that each brings to the debate.
6. Hence there is no one answer to the question of how to discriminate
higher quality from destruction, decay and disorder. These patterns are
level specific.
7. Further, democracy can only deliver quality up to the level of the
dominant level of development in that society, and persons with a higher
level of development must expect opposition, if not persecution, from those
at lower levels.
8. While the immediate perception of quality is prior to subjects and
objects, the influence of such a perception will have outcomes in the
subjective, intersubjective and objective realms of experience.
9. Quality that is concerned only with depth tends towards fascism, while
quality which is concerned only with span tends towards totalitarianism.
Balancing depth values (rights) against span values (responsibilities) is a
fundamental moral dilemma. (In other words, we must always define "Quality
for who?")
10. If the above point is correct, there is a metaquality that
discriminates between the individual's experiential perception of quality
(as depth), and intersubjective values (responsibilities), and hence we are
back in ethics, which says everything that feels good is not necessarily
good for you or your society. Pirsig started down this path when he argued
that the intellect is not unfettered but must work to promote the social
good, just as I would argue that society is not unfettered, but must work to
increase biological good. (In other words, Pirsig acknowledges that
intellect has social responsibilities.)
So, to summarise, there is no such thing as patterns of higher quality,
which exist in some absolute sense. Each stage of individual development,
however, facilitates the emergence of new patterns, which operate at that
level, and are transcended as a new level is entered. While these patterns
arise in the experience of each individual, they have implications for that
individual as a subject, for the groups and society in which that individual
operates intersubjectively, and for the 'objective' world in which the
individual and his or her society can be described. At the highest levels of
individual development, however, the community of all sentient beings
transcends the normal subject/object divisions, and so the lure of quality
tends towards a non SOM outcome, but this is only achieved as the individual
progresses through the lower levels where subjects and objects are
appropriately real, since at those levels there is no possibility of
experiencing a unity that transcends the SOM divide.
John B
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 - 16:01:41 BST