Hi John, Marco, Platt, Rob, Clayton and Bard
Below are my comments to John on The Q. Please jump in on anything of
interest or where you disagree.
THE Q
What do the patterns of higher quality have that those of destruction, decay
and disorder don't?
JOHN:
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...
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.
ROG:
I am familiar with Wilber, though one must be careful because his work has
evolved from earlier writings. I would say that his "levels of human
development" can be considered an extension or elaboration on Pirsig's
perspective that Quality differs based upon one's particular static patterns
of quality. I find GREAT value in Wilber's "Protect and promote the greatest
depth for the greatest span". In fact, I think it encapsulates what is
missing in the MOQ. By building this into the MOQ (with a definite twist
toward continuously pursuing the Dynamic -- ie the edge of chaos) I think
Pirsig could have greatly improved the moral value of the metaphysics. This
is the missing link in the MOQ.
JOHN:
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.
ROG:
Let me take another shot at solving this. Again I agree with all the above.
I would add though that failure to recognize Quality does not necessarily
mean that it is harmful or of low quality. It can mean that one is oblivious
to it. As an example, my dog, Paco, is oblivious to most of the social and
intellectual value that I perceive in our shared environment (and I am
oblivious to some of his values). However, we can live in harmony with each
other by ensuring our values do not contradict each other. I think that the
same is true with the evolutionary levels of consciousness that Wilber
highlights. Yes, some people only value their subgroup, while others value
all of mankind and the universe (and Paco just wants to protect his house).
But we can still find ways to live in harmony as long as those with smaller
views don't restrict others' wider sense of Quality AND as long as the
various divisions are not allowed to harm others in their pursuit of Quality.
I am not contradicting anything you say, just taking it a different direction
according to the depth and span angle. Thoughts?
JOHN:
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.
ROG:
Hmmmmm. Again, there is probably a large degree of truth in this, but my
experience tells me that there are many exceptions. I think the way
Republics work that they can many times rise above (and fall below) the
dominant level. Certainly I would agree that they are pulled toward the mean.
I also offer that democracies can and often do ignore (that is they are
oblivious) to some of the higher level values. They don't have to oppose
them, though they frequently have.
JOHN:
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.)
ROG:
You kinda lost me on the "metaquality" part. I don't know what you are
saying....help.
I agree that the added "depth and span" angle would take us to an MOQ that
attempted to maximize Quality across the greatest numbers and across all
levels. I have harped relentlessly that Pirsig spent to much focus on
conflicts and not enough on harmony in Lila. (Platt usually disagrees by
quoting examples where Pirsig is harmonious, but I am not argueing that
Pirsig misses the point completely, just that he focuses WAY TO MUCH on level
conflicts and not ENOUGH on the real solution to promote the greatest quality
in depth and span.)
JOHN:
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.
ROG:
You are getting pretty metaphysical here. I would just say that the solution
which must be found is how to allow countless patterns of all different
levels to coexist, thrive and constantly pursue the Dynamic. I would also say
that the history of the universe is a tale of how far we have progressed
toward this solution.
Your insights would be appreciated.
Rog
PS -- Wasn't it Liebnitz who suggested this could be the best of all possible
universes? I think one could argue that he may be right. If morality and
Quality are reality, then.....
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 - 16:01:42 BST