Hi all,
Kevin wrote:
>I don't know whether Pirsig agrees, but he seems to bounce around the
issue
>quite nicely on several occasions. He say Dynamic Quality is constant.
He
>says Its *between* the object and subject. He says Its the cutting edge
of
>reality, through which every-thing is created. I think these add up to
the
>explaination that Dynamic Quality is in all static things, but
transcedes
>them all. The static realm is one of false divisions; it takes no leap
of
>logic to conclude the Dynamic Quality united these division and from
this
>union the separation of subject and object comes into static existence.
>
First, I think that Pirsig is talking about Quality in total rather than
DQ as distinct from SQ.
Secondly, to talk about "false divisions" implies that there might be
"true divisions" which is the idealist position.
On the other hand to reject all divisions (mysticism) seems to me the
complete opposite to pragmatism and most unPirsigian. The trouble is
that our picture of reality is (correctly) a picture of REALised
patterns. DQ is excluded because it is preintellectual, or prereal. This
is why I like to think of DQ as potential, something that is latent
state prior to its realization.
[snip]
>
>I think Dynamic Quality birthed the inorganic level. Chaos is a crude
term
>which Pirsig uses, but there is no difference between it and Dynamic
>Quality. ...
Pirsig admits to creating confusion in the way he talks about chaos. You
can't really define chaos, because it means a lack of pattern. As soon
as you put on a definition, that in itself is a pattern. One might
equate chaos with randomness, but that is equally problematic to define.
e.g. as I stated in a post some while ago, there is no computer function
to generate a random number - it would be a contradiction. As an
alternative, computers can be programmed to generate ARBITRARY numbers.
To call something chaotic is to say that it lacks pattern, though that
seems to me an entirely subjective assessment. If you look carefully
enough at a chaotic situation, patterns become apparent and once they
do, you can no longer consider the situation chaotic. This surely is the
history of human knowledge.
I could go on discussing this for ages - indeed I have in different
guises through several months of contributions to the Lila Squad. I
believe that one can find a consistent pattern which appears throughout.
It's a theme that now seems obvious to me and it surfaces all the time.
Here is a quote from a non-philosophy novel I was just reading ("Cold
Mountain" by Charles Frazier):-
"- You commence by trying to see what likes what, Ruby said. Which Ada
interpreted to mean, Observe and understand the workings of affinity in
nature.
Ruby pointed to red splashes of color on the green hillside of the
ridge: sumac and dogwood trning color in advance of other trees. Why
would they do that near a month ahead? she said.
-Chance? Ada said.
Ruby made a little sound like spitting a fleck of dirt or a gnat from
the tip of her tongue. Her view was that people like to lay off anything
they can't fathom as random."
That last sentence is a gem. To call something random or chaotic is to
say it lacks meaning and value. That's the option for the intellectually
lazy.
"Does Lila have quality?" The lazy answer is no. Phaedrus was willing to
make the effort to find a yes answer.
To find meaning is also to create meaning - it takes care and effort
(maybe "gumption" is the right word).
Pirsig didn't discover something new. He tries to draw our attention to
something that is so ubiquitous that it is easily overlooked ("We can't
see the wood for the trees"). I find little gems, like the one I quoted
above, all the time.
I could go on discussing this for ages - oh, I already said that in
this post, so I'd better just end off right now.
Jonathan
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:55 BST