All moqers: I'm not sure if "human nature" is the right thread name.
What I really want to discuss is the explanatory power of the MOQ. There
are so many powerful and relevant quotes in the posts lately. I hope we
can gather them up and work it out before they fade into memory, before
we lose the momentum.
Ever have that feeling of wanting to say everything at once so much that
you can say nothing at all. Try to start at the begining or just dive
into the middle somewhere. OK, just one brick at a time.
That's it! Pirsig's explainations have appeared to some as contradictory
because he can't say everything at once and there are no easy rules.
There are only four levels of static patterns and five moral codes, but
we "calculate" the morality using all of these nine elements in a single
complex equation. Sometimes its simpler than that. Patients and germs
figure easily. The civil war is another matter entirely.
Pirsig's statements on the topic should be seen as strands in a web or
cable, each once adding strength and detail to the larger effort. I
think his quotes have to be seen as many examples of how these
level-code calculations work. He refers to well known historical events
and re-invisions them thru MOQ eyes. Naturally, the levels and codes
need to be properly understood AS WELL AS the situation under scrutiny.
Its as if we have the right formula, but we also have to be sure the
numbers we plug into it are also accurate. Am I saying anything you
don't already know?
ROGER recently said, "It is usually a HUGE mistake to try to equate any
THING or behavior to a level" I disagree 100%. I think Pirsig gives us
the levels (and codes) for a reason. Lila HB page 100 "The MOQ provides
a better set of coordinates with which to interpet the world than does
SOM because it is more inclusive." I repeat, "with which to interpet
the world". That's the whole idea. That's what makes it pragmatically
useful. (Redundancy for dramatic effect)
ROGER also says, "Even a subatomic particle is as much an intellectal
pattern as an inorganic one." I think this claim is confusing and not
true. We have intellectual patterns about subatomic structures in both
SOM and MOQ terms, but that ought not be confused with actual "thing" we
refer to. Such thinking would even make the patient/germ debate too
difficult to manage.
Sort of parenthetically, I have to say that Roger, Glove and others have
been working intelligently and sincerely to explain ideas like the one
above. And in return I've made real efforts to see what they're getting
at, but I just don't think it works. It could be that they are correct,
but that it is impossible to articulate in any meaningful way. (I guess
I'm coming back to the conclusion that its some kind of solipsism.) In
any case, this view is lost on me.
I recently claimed that the MOQ helped me understand some current
events, namely the impeachment of Clinton and the NATO action against
Serbia. In the same post, I suggested that some folks might be
frustrated by the MOQ when it disagrees with strongly held ideological
beliefs. (Or any kind of full cup, I guess.) In other words, trouble
with the levels may not stem from an inability to understand so much as
a refusal to accept MOQ conclusions. (No Struan, its not aimed at you. I
guess its aimed at anyone who takes politics and history seriously or
anyone whose ears turn red and hot upon reading it. ) I bring this up
because I think there is another, similar trap with regard to mysticism.
I think David T raised it and John B repeated the concern. It went
something like this... "everybody just hop on board the mystical train
to DQ and then you'll know that everything is good". They and others
object to mysticism for good rational reasons. Its healthy skepticism.
BUT...
A. Pirsig says flatly, explicitly and repeatedly that it is equated with
DQ.
B. Faith is not required for "belief" in mysticism. Short of a mystical
experience there are libraries full of books on the topic and the
reports of others are numerous enough to be taken seriously as evidence.
You've never experienced death, but you know it happens to people. You
probably knew there was such a thing as falling in love even when you
were 5 years old and the other gender had kooties. But when you finally
fell in love you began to really appreciate what all the face sucking
was about. One can know "about" something even before you really get
there. That's what maps are for. The MOQ is a map of reality and DQ is
one of the largest features on it.
So, hop on board. Really. That's why he gives us those kenetic images,
you know. Trains and motorcycles and sailboats all move thru space with
a kind of leading edge. He's consistant in these analogies for a good
reason. DQ is at that cutting edge and that cutting edge is at the heart
of the MOQ. DQ is at the heart of the last moral code too, and that one
sort of rules over all the others.
(All other things being equal, the most Dynamic is the most moral.)
Which brings me back to the starting point; the explanatory power of the
MOQ.
When we use the levels and codes instead of SOM we almost have to
rephrase the question. Instead of asking how moral is it or how good is
it, we ought to ask how is it good or how is it moral. Pirsig is trying
to make the case that everything is composed of quality and only that
which has value exists. So when we examine any situation we ask "what
values are at stake here? What kinds of static quality are in conflict?"
The levels tell us there are different categories of good, as in "the
adultry was good, but only according to biological level values".
In that sense, everything has quality. Just like Lila herself. She had
that kind of quality, if nothing else. "Intellectually, she was
nowhere." For Lila, the intellect had no value and did not exist.
I'm sad, you're gald
that I'm all out of time.
David B.
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 - 16:03:05 BST