Hi all,
(still having mail problems... sorry for the delay...)
Here I am to go on with the Principle thread, if anyone is still interested.
One only premise. In my opinion, this thread has sense if there is some
agreement on what Pirsig means with the (in)famous "Laws":
« there's the morality called the "laws of nature," by which inorganic
patterns triumph over chaos; »
« there is a morality called the "laws of the jungle" where biology triumphs
over the inorganic forces of starvation and death; »
« there's a morality where social patterns triumph over biology, "the
law"; »
« there is intellectual morality, which is still struggling in its attempts
to control society." ... "human rights" is usually the moral code of
intellect-vs.-society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
control. »
« Finally there's a [...] Dynamic morality which isn't a code. [...] you
could call it a "Code of Art" or something like that , but art is
usually thought of as such a frill that that title undercuts its
importance. The morality of the Brujo in Zuni-that was Dynamic morality»
Obviously, I'm not meaning I'm ruling out those that don't agree. Just, I
don't want to reopen that point here, and I think it is a necessary static
latch in order to go on. Anyway, the "solipsist" thread is still there, and
If there is still someone who wants to follow that path... I'm here too.
Platt, maybe?
To summarize the situation, I had suggested these principles.
Basic principle: Better is Better.
1st Principle: Something is better than Nothing
2nd Principle: Alive is better than Dead
3rd Principle: Together is better than Alone
4th Principle: Individuality is better than Mass
While the first three found a wide agreement, the #4 has been more or less
questioned by all. No one said anything about the basic one, which I suggest
here before the others, as historically in my opinion always existed and
will always exist.
Here are your comments.
==> WIM:
The lowest level of Dynamic Quality that is secured by the type of static
latch that is specific to a Q-level can be described as
a 'moral principle'. Marco's formulations are good candidates, I think. We
should be careful however to distinguish between the LOWEST level of DQ that
is secured by a static Q-level and the HIGHEST level of DQ it can reach. At
a quick glance (I have little time now) Marco's formulations don't seem to
consistently do one or the other.
M:
You are right. writing these formulations, I tried to imagine *who* could
have said such statements for the very first time... so I imagine a
carbon-based molecule who decided(!) to replicate.... or a couple of alive
beings who decided(!) to share some risk or food.... Said that I beg pardon
for such a dangerous anthropomorphisation, I think they(!) could not
imagine(!) the higher possible Quality that path was driving to, not the
necessary minimum static latch. All what I was trying to imagine was that
sense of bitterness, that "dim apprehension" we all feel when we try to
create a better situation.
And here are the specific comments on the 4th principle.
==> DMB:
...setting the individual up against the collective [...] can lead to that
terrible secret loneliness, to solipsim, to a situation where each of us is
like a single ship out on the ocean trying desperately to communicated by
radio. Painting the 4th moral principle as a contest between the one and the
many only leads to confusion. That's just not what its about. How about this
instead... 4th moral principle "Rights are better than "the law".
M:
I've already replied on your suggestion. Still, your criticism stands.
Actually, I did not write "life is better than matter". The biological
principle is not about a conflict between life and the inorganic level, as
both "life" and "death" have a biological meaning. So you have a point
saying that I should not evoke a conflict between the one and the many.
(About the "terrible secret loneliness", see below).
==> JOHN B:
There are in my view three level 4 moral principles
4(a) Better beauty than ugliness.
4(b) Better understanding than ignorance.
4(c) Better compassion than indifference.
M:
And I've already replied to you too, John. As said, I need one principle,
possibly able to explain your three and all the possible "better's" that
intellect can offer. Let me thank you for your nice words and for
explaining, with 3wDave, the complete meaning of "compassion". Then you
have written a very important thing:
JOHN:
The problem with level 4 quality is that it is potentially extremely
isolating. It is the end of the line for the egoic personality. I can
appreciate art, enjoy all kinds of understanding, and feel compassion for
others, and still feel a huge lack in my life. This is also the problem with
creativity. [...] Poor Van Gogh is the paradigm case [...] Pirsig constantly
refers to the isolation of modern life, but has no solutions that I can see.
M:
More or less you are sharing the same worries of DMB. And I agree that
isolation can be terrible. Ever considered that intellect could be a
solution to (or, at least, an attempt to solve) isolation? The greater the
giant, the more we *are* like islands in the ocean. The complex the
structure we live within, the less we are deemed necessary. And here comes
anguish. And the quest for a way out, the attempt to break that isolation.
Possibly, communicating or creating something very intelligent, or
useful.... or, why not, beautiful. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't.
But who should we blame for that? Van Gogh or the culture (Giant) of his
times?
I don't know if Pirsig offers solutions. He offers an analysis. Culture puts
all those mirrors around us...
Well, IMO Intellect is about breaking the mirrors. And show the world -and
ourselves- who we really are and what we can do.
==> PLATT:
For the 4th level I suggest: "Better thinking than feeling". Based on
Pirsig's criteria for the indispensable intellectual pattern
of truth--"logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of
explanation." Emotions need not apply.
M:
hmmm.... Is a rational lie better than a sincere love? The equation
thought=truth is misleading. A feeling can be true, isn't it? Thinking and
feeling are biological and can well be used to carry on high or low quality
social and/or intellectual patterns.
==> ROG:
I tried to suggest a fourth but encountered a brain freeze...
M:
Freezing your brain is not easy. Yooooh uhhh ! (joyful scream) :-)
==> RICK:
I would propose something like "Better to learn from experience than
custom." How's that for you?
M:
Well, learning from experience is always good, at every level. "Custom" is a
good word (see later). Thank you.
==> SQUONK:
Better imitating, creatively.
I suggested imitation as a, 'Betterness' because those who can imitate the
prevailing best behaviours become intellectuals
The solution lies with not wishing to conform to social values informed by
SOM intellectual values.
M:
My dear memeticist. I think you are confusingly trying to state the right
thing. Creativity is a good term in this context. But, memes or not memes,
it's hard to put imitation and creativity on the same side. "Imitation",
"Conformity"... as well as Rick's "Custom", seem to point to a sort of
intellectual entropy... and isn't society the entropy intellect is escaping
from? Society is about sharing memes. Culture is shared memes. Intellect
is about questioning those memes.
So, here is my conclusion.
Basic principle: Better is Better.
1st Principle: Something is better than Nothing
2nd Principle: Alive is better than Dead
3rd Principle: Together is better than Alone
4th Principle: Individuality is better than conformity
I've accepted the criticism from DMB, but not dropping Individuality. I've
replaced "Mass" with "Conformity". This way, Individuality and Conformity
are both within the intellectual domain, just like Life and Death were under
the biological domain. And there's not anymore a conflict between the single
and the many. Individuality can help society, even *more* than conformity.
Once individuality grows, here comes creativity and arts, curiosity and
science....
What do you think?
Ciao,
Marco
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 - 16:01:51 BST