Hullo John, Risky, all
"Better is better".
John:
I interpret this as meaning that 'quality is'. In other
words we inhabit a universe where quality is not an epiphenomenon, but is
the fundamental value basis of everything. This seems to me to be Pirsig's
main argument, and while I continue to disagree strongly with his assumption
that quality cannot be divided, that it is unidimensional, I have no
argument with his assertion that value matters. To people. Or put
differently, people like us can only occur in a universe where value
matters.
RISKY:
Static quality can be divided. Why do you continue to say that Pirsig holds
this assumption?
Marco:
Agree with Risky.
"Something is better than nothing".
J:
Says who? This value only obtains in the
context of aware beings who value their existence, which is dependant upon
there being something rather than nothing. (Or so we believe - in modern
physics it would prove hard to define something and nothing unambiguously, I
suspect.)
R:
Nothing has no value...says I. That which is and that which lasts has the
values which define its existence. I do not see how this has to do with
aware beings.
Marco
A thing that has no value does not exist; therefore, value is existence. We
have largely discussed if we can say that inorganic entities are -barely-
aware or not. Indeed, they respond to quality. Anyway, better something than
nothing is the self evident principle that says that the Big Bang, or
whatever else, has been a moral event.
"Life is better than death".
J:
Only half the story. The twin imperatives of
biology are survival and reproduction. In certain cases, death that ensures
survival of a number of close relatives is better than life, at least from
an evolutionary perspective (and this is borne out by numerous otherwise
inexplicable facts).
R:
Life is better than non-life because life is adaptive. It is existence and
continuance by means of adaptation and replication. Furthermore, life
itself
evolves over generations. I would say that as far as a succinct definition
goes, using the term "life" can be assumed to extend to adaptation and
replication. As for your comment that death in the service of life negates
this principle, I would offer that it strongly confirms it. We are back to
that old issue that destruction intended to prevent greater destruction or
to
foster reconstruction is constructive, not destructive
Marco
Risky's answer is very intellectual. I mean, we can say life is better
'cause it is adaptive. The famous amoeba knows it's better to live, even
without knowing anything about the adaptiveness of life. About survival and
reproduction, I'd say that life IS survival AND reproduction (...and
evolution).While about the example of the death for the survival of the
relatives, I'd say it is on the social level. It is a classic example of a
giant asking for the sacrifice of a biological component.
"Together is better than alone".
J:
Inadequate. Together with my worst enemy is
definitely worse than alone. Together within a framework of law is Pirsig's
formulation.
R:
Being with an enemy is being alone. Togetherness here is intended to imply
cooperation, harmony, synergy, specialization, tradition, culture and
healthy
competition. Laws are the codes holding this principle together.
Marco:
Agree with Risky, and add that this principle is also about sharing (goods,
emotions, needs, knowledge....). There's nothing to share with your enemy.
When you have something to share, it's not anymore an enemy. Again, laws
come much later. Families don't need laws to stay together.
"Knowledge is better than ignorance"
J:
Definitely inadequate. We inhabit a
world in which human endeavor has been specialised into three domains, in
which three variants of value obtain. Subjective value has been elaborated
as art; intersubjective value has been elaborated as ethics and morality,
while objective value informs science, mathematics and logic.
Animals have knowledge. (eg they 'know' where to find water, etc) That does
not mean they have reached the intellectual level. Self consciousness
appears to be a prerequisite for this level.
R:
This level is characterized by the deliberate and methodical search for
knowledge -- regardless of how we choose to subdivide it. You are correct
that knowledge has application in at least two other levels (so too does
togetherness btw). I think that it is the focus of this level though.
Marco:
I agree with Risky's that knowledge becomes the focus only at this level.
And I agree with John that self-consciousness is the prerequisite of this
level. The difference between intellectual knowledge and the knowledge of
animals and cultures is that we know we know. Animals just know how to
preserve their life... and societies just know how to preserve
togetherness. We love to know even "useless" things!
I agree also that the distinction in subjective, intersubjective and
objective "variants" can be useful. But on the other hand I think (along
with Pirsig) that a scientist -for example- is also an artist engaged in a
personal "high quality endeavor", guided by a personal curiosity. As you
probably have seen in my previous posts on this thread, I also think that
self consciousness and individuality are the basic tenet of this level....
but I admit that in the end knowledge is the "trait d'union" between
scientists, artists, philosophers and even mystics. They all just want and
love to KNOW, even if they lead their aims towards different variants of
knowledge.
I skip the rest of John's post, as I mostly agree with Risky.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
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 - 16:02:01 BST