Hi Rich, Roger, Platt et. al.
> RICH:
>
> For myself, this is good, so far. But here's the 'kicker':[Pirsig Quote]
>
> "There isn't any 'man' independent of the patterns. Man is the
> patterns. This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind',
> 'people', 'the public'...'I', 'he', 'they'....Like 'substance' they
> can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for
> collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
> their own"
>
> Okay, but isn't this contradictory:
>
> "...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." - pg.180
>
> AND:
>
> "...societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than
> sets of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive
> or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that."
>
> Who the hell is the "one" who "follows", "perceive(s) or adjust(s)",
> who is a "living being"???
In the first paragraph above Pirsig is re-stating the case that there is
no such thing as an independent, objective reality. The words used
are intellectual abstractions for what appear to be independent
entities but are part of the network of reality. Intellect identifies and
seperates the nodes but is not always aware of the
(inter)connections between them.
In the second paragraph I think he is talking about the ascent
through the levels and the degree of awareness of the various
functions of each level which relates to the control that can be
exercized over them, which determines the degree of 'free will'. The
closer to dynamic reality/quality the greater the choice that can be
made because of the increase in awareness.
In the third paragraph he is making the case for the convergence of
the various patterns and what emerges from that convergence. This
supports the first paragraph in that the patterns do not have some
sort of independent or objective existence and the second whereby
the interaction of the patterns of the levels creates temporary
instances of persons. The greater the degree to which the higher
levels exist in (create) a person the greater the likelihood of
perceiving DQ.
> I have thought this to be the CONSCIOUS me, the ONE who is ALWAYS
> there, who "watches" and controls 'his' four levels of static
> patterns of morality and "decides" when to make Dynamic increments,
> or respond to Dynamic situations...
But that entity is only a part of the whole. Much of the time 'we' don't
control what happens and are not aware of the activities at the lower
levels. Only as intellectual value approaches or moves toward
Dynamic Quality do we become 'aware' of its existence.
> What do you think? Can you honestly go to work tomorrow with the
> guiding principle that really the 'thing' named "Roger" has no
> independent existence of 'it's' own, whatsoever?
I can't answer for Rog but I'm quite happy to leave as much of my
inorganic, biological and social functionality on autopilot - this
provides more space for intellect to do its thing.
> Is our conversation but two intellectual patterns meeting?
In one sense this sound something like the discussion we had a
while back about the Quality event. The intellectual patterns are
supported by the other patterns and the conversation can create
more valuable intellectual patterns - such as discussing our
awareness of DQ.
> How is it "decided" to switch from one code of morality to another,
> regarding the movements of this body, direction of these thoughts?
I suppose it's part of the ebb and flow of the interaction of the various
patterns of value - some we are conscious of, others we aren't. Why
assume that there is always a conscious decision.
> ROGER:
>
> Sorry for the long quote cut'n'paste, I hate excessive quoting (and it
> violates our charter), but Rich again has my mind spinning. Personally, I can
> accept the fact that experience has me, but I think he has found another
> possible platypus. To be honest, I always saw the extension toward "living
> things" as suspect, but I never noticed it was seemingly contradictory. I
> suspect an MOQ breakthrough if someone can help Us through this dilemma. Any
> takers?
I've tried to make a start. Any comments?
>
> RICH:
>
> Would you agree that these lines of thought must lead to the
> conclusion that... all these static patterns which I thought were
> "ME", a "MAN", are nothing but MAYA - illusion... because REAL-ly,
> only Dynamic Quality exists - the pre-intellectual cutting edge...
> This leads us back to the question of capitalizing static Quality,
> doesn't it?
>
> ROGER:
>
> But without the illusion reality can't exist either. Is the projectionist
> higher art than the film? Would anyone even need a projectionist without the
> film? Don't static and DQ create each other?
>
I would say that they are only an illusion if you try to consider them
as independent and objective 'things'. When seen as part of an
interconnected whole they are far from an illusion - they are part of
the overall reality.
Horse
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST