Jonathan and Squad
>Jonathan wrote
-
Diana:-
>>Could you elaborate Jonathan, after all you've just
>>proven that Pirsig lists these five moral codes in
>>more than one place in LILA, that would suggest
>>to me that he had thought them through pretty thorougly.
>I'm sure he has, but his comments in correspondence to quoted by Anthony
>suggest that Pirsig himself admits to some difficulties. Much as I
>admire Pirsig, I think that we are going to have to resolve the problems
>without Pirsig (unless he chooses to involve himself in the Squad, or
>publish another novel).
Well let's have it out then ... may I ask precisely what difficulties and then we can see whether we can resolve them or not?
>I think that my explanation of higher levels arbitrating conflicts at
>lower levels is just a start. I now realise that the opposite can also
>happen. Lightening can "choose" to strike one tree rather than another.
>That's inorganic arbitration of the biological level, the basis of
>Darwinian "natural selection".
This shows that inorganic values can destroy biological ones. Yes it happens. But why is that a difficulty for the MoQ?
>This operates also at other levels. Society chooses *which* intellectual
>patterns it values. Who is more popular this year, Keynes or Freedman?
>Will Pirsig's new book make it onto the best-seller list?
Yes and that's immoral too. And mostly the press are to blame.
But so what? The MoQ gives us a basis for judging these things. Life isn't fair, but you can't blame the MoQ for that.
>We also have biological evaluation of social patterns. Am I more
>comfortable at a rock concert, or sitting enjoying a meal in a good
>restaurant?
Same again. I still don't see what your complaint is. A biological evaluation of a social pattern is immoral, UNLESS it is necessary for the survival of the biological level (Pirsig's escape clause).
>Finally, we must also recognise same-level evaluation, e.g. chemical
>reaction (inorganic-inorganic) or sexual attraction
>(biological-biological).
Pirsig also deals with this in LILA, patterns can be more or less dynamic within a level - ie the dynamic-static code. So what's the difficulty?
>I'm going to think a little more about whether or not there is a direct
>interaction between separated levels e.g. can intellect directly
>evaluate biological patterns, or can society evaluate the inorganic
>level. I think the answer is YES, but want to clarify my thoughts on
>this some more.
The answer is yes and no. Intellect can evaluate social patterns, but it can't really experience them. For example you might intellectually understand the concept of small talk and you might be able to pass an intellectual judgement on it, but you can't actually do it unless you are in social mode.
>But my main awakening comes when I realise that Patterns of Value are in
>fact Patterns of EVALUATION. They exist and have value by virtue of
>their interactions. They evaluate and are evaluated at the same time,
>simultaneously subject and object.
>Now to come back to the issue of whether the level hierarchy is also a
>moral hierarchy, we need to readdress the question of what the levels
>are. Most of us (including Pirsig) have taken an "atomist" view of this.
>Intellect is built up using social patterns, built from biological
>patterns derived from inorganic building blocks. To put it another way,
>ALL patterns are ensembles of the simplest inorganic building blocks.
>The levels are "waves" of organisation (the levels) which help us
>understand the structure. For example, it is easier to build a computer
>from ready circuit boards carrying preassembled integrated circuits
>rather than start with raw silicon and copper.
>I agree with DONNY that:-
><<<
>As I view it, Poincare's rule of "conventionalism" still applies to the
>MoQ. I
>do not believe that the 4 ststic levels are "given," or "out there." I
>think
>this is a system not unlike euclideian geomitry. Their are numerous
>ways we
>could divide it up. The shape the 4 or 5 or 10 levels take all depends
>on how
>we make cuts w/ our analytic knife.
>>>>
>This makes the levels sound arbitrary, which is hardly a sound basis for
>a moral precedence based on them!
>On the other hand, the levels are REAL ensembles of REAL patterns. The
>arbitrariness comes from deciding WHICH patterns get included in the
>ensemble.
>It is the large size of the higher level ensembles which give moral
>authority. It is more moral to consider the overall needs of a town of
>50,000 individuals than the needs of just one person.
>Xcto@aol.com :-
>>Was the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
>>Nagasaki an intellectual or social decision? Was it moral?
>It was moral if the cost was less than a long bloody protraction of the
>war. It was immoral if it ultimately led to a nuclear holocaust some
>decades (or centuries) later. Thankfully, it's so far so good:-).
>Morality has to take account of as many relevant issues as possible.
>That takes judgement, to identify the relevant issues.
>But the ultimate morality is an ensemble of ALL patterns - the ONE.
>(Note that one can substitute "reality" for "morality" in the previous
>two sentences)
>-|
So you say that there are "difficulties" with Pirsig's five moral codes.
And the first difficulty is that lower levels can evaluate and at times overcome higher levels?
And the second one is that the levels are arbitrary?
Clarification of the problem is 90% of the solution.
Kind regards
Diana
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make a name for yourself - Freemail@hongkong.com
Hongkong.com Ltd. http://www.hongkong.com
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST