Hi Wim, Marco, Jonathan, All:
When Marco pointed out that Pirsig associated DQ with luck, the door
opened for Wim's interesting interpretation of the purpose/accident
controversy:
> Let's compare it with Pirsig's dissolution of the controversy whether human
> beings are determined or have free will. (A full quote from chapter 12 of
> 'Lila' where he does this follows this post.) His answer is that human
> beings are BOTH determined AND have free will: 'To the extent that one's
> behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality it is without choice.
> But to the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is undefinable,
> one's behavior is free.'
Using this as his model, Wim attempted to solve the purpose/accident
puzzle:
> If human beings are determined to the extent that they express static
> patterns of values and are free to act purposefully to the extent that they
> 'follow DQ' (sic), other 'things' are too. The whole material world as we
> know it expresses BOTH static patterns of values AND dynamic values, values
> chosen freely. As we experience accumulating static patterns of values of
> growing complexity, we tend to presume The Origin to have been devoid of
> static patterns of values. There was only freedom to choose, resulting in
> unpatterned chaos. Only purpose, maybe, but not in the SOM-sense in which
> only human beings (or other future-conscious beings) or at least 'some
> thing' can 'purpose', as there was 'no thing' there yet which could
> 'purpose'. (I prefer not to use 'God' as meaning an antropomorph,
> future-conscious being, even if I recognize the Meaning of metaphors in
> which 'God' appears as such. So God/DQ was there at The Origin for me, but
> not as a 'being purposing creation', but as a 'freedom to purpose', to
> improve on chaos for any pattern that happened to occur.) The material
> world 'develops' in a sense BOTH in a determined way, following static
> patterns of values, AND in a purposeful way, following DQ, the lure of
> 'better'. In another sense, when 'development' and 'evolution' are taken to
> imply 'progress', it only 'develops' purposefully (for expressing
> pre-existing static patterns of values brings nothing new, no 'development'
> in that sense). BUT we should take 'purpose' here in a sense that doesn't
> presume an anthropomorph, future-conscious being that 'purposes' something.
> What's true (or rather Meaningful) for the material world is also
> true/Meaningful for the non-material world, for the MoQ doesn't recognize
> matter/non-matter as a fundamental split in reality. So everything is BOTH
> determined AND able to 'purpose'.
This seems a rather convoluted explanation and unnecessary IMO. DQ
can often look like accident, chance or luck to the uninitiated, but
throughout the MOQ, DQ is cited as the "force of evolutionary creation."
(17) In fact, "forces" of various kinds play a key role in the MOQ,
explaining many things which are inexplicable in SOM. DQ is the moral
"creative" force that accounts for "Dynamic progress."
"Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which Dynamic
forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge
static inorganic forces at a superatomic level." (11)
One sentence is all that's needed in the MOQ to explain biological
evolution. Notice that accident/chance/luck plays no role whatsoever.
Those who like Occam's razor should seize on this sentence. As for
there being purpose to evolution, Pirsig again appeals to Occam
admirers in the following passage from Chap. 11:
"We see that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same
purpose as the subatomic forces had when they first began to create
him billions of years ago. He's looking for information that will expand
the static patterns of evolution itself and give both greater versatility and
greater stability against hostile static forces of nature. He may have
personal motives such as "pure fun," that is, the Dynamic Quality of his
work. But when he applies for funds he will normally and properly tie his
request to some branch of humanity's overall evolutionary purpose."
I know it's hard for SOM science (intellectual level) to give up the notion
of accident as playing a vital role in evolution. As for an evolutionary
purpose--well, we know how SOM science feels about that. As this site
illustrates time and again, the static forces of the intellectual level are
powerful indeed.
It's clear to me that the purpose/accident problem simply doesn't exist
in the MOQ and thus requires no explanation. The results from the
forces of DQ look like chance only when one is unaware of those forces.
And if DQ lacks purpose, there's no need for it.
Finally, when I proposed that Marco's explanation boiled down to
"accidentally on purpose" I had tongue firmly planted in cheek. This is
what kids say, especially siblings, when one who is blamed for hurting
another claims, "It was an accident" and the hurtee responds, usually
rightfully, "Yeah, accidentally on purpose!"
Platt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:19 BST