Hi Roger, Rich, Glove & MD!
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 by Glove:
Glove quotes Rich:
Epistemologically you may never prove to yourselves that the outside world
exists, but the framework of ontological understanding known as the MOQ has
as an essential foundation an "objective" evolution of Quality ...
Mary:
I want to examine this below, but first I want to look at the two replies
you received, Rich. One from Glove and one from Risky-Roger-dodger ;)
Glove responds:
Pirsig writes: "These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to
Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that." (pg. 185 teal paperback)
I fail to see where objectivity comes into the picture here, but I will
ponder it further.
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 1999 11:35 AM by Roger
> Roger replies:
> I don't think this statement is correct. I believe Pirsig erred here. If
> this is true, then how did the living patterns emerge from inorganic
matter
> to begin with? If this is true, then how does the governor on a steam
engine
> respond to the dynamic increase in temperature? If this is true, then the
> entire inorganic level cannot respond to quality. If this is true, then
> artificial intelligence is doomed.
Mary:
Rich, when you said, "...an "objective" evolution of Quality...", are you
referring to the static levels and moral codes? If so, I can understand
because the whole evolutionary static construction that Pirsig developed can
easily be comprehended by SOM thinking. It is essentially an expanded
version of Darwinian evolution.
Glove quotes Pirsig from pg 185 (teal). This is followed by an even more
abbreviated quote of 185 by Roger. When you then said, "I believe Pirsig
erred here.", Roger, I was forced to get out of my chair, find my teal copy
and check it out! If read in context, I don't see where Pirsig erred.
If you back up to the beginning of the chapter (13) on pg 182, Pirsig begins
by saying, "Historically every effort to unite science and ethics has been a
disaster. You can't paste a moral system on top of a pile of amoral
objective matter. ... But the MOQ doesn't permit this ... 'amoral objective
matter' is a low-grade form of morality." The confusion one may feel with
this quote is that the word "moral" is used in 2 different ways. The
pasted-on moral system Pirsig first talks about seems to be the ordinary
moral system of values we humans have developed in support of our Social
level. This is objective morality as commonly understood by SOM. But the
"low-grade form of morality" he attributes to the Inorganic level is of the
MOQ type, supported by Pirsig's moral codes, and so Pirsig is right - you
can't attribute social morals to a rock, but you must attribute inorganic
morals to it.
After a couple of paragraphs where he discusses the moral codes operating
between the levels, he introduces "Dynamic Morality" and says, "...in the
MOQ all these sets of morals, plus another Dynamic morality, are not only
real, they are the whole thing. ... We're at last dealing with morals on the
basis of reason." To me, this says we are finally able to use
subject/object logic to evaluate the MOQ-morality of a given situation at or
between any static level(s). Pirsig developed (or discovered) the static
levels and the moral codes. The use of the word "morals" is fraught with
danger, however, because you have to be vigilant in recalling that (unless
stated otherwise) he is usually talking about MOQ-morals not Social Level
morals. MOQ-Morals contain within them all the Social Level morals. He
then segues into the quote used above. Here's an expanded version:
"...societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more than sets
of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adust to
Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that. The strongest moral
argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic
capability - its capability for change and evolution."
Now, back to Glove quotes Rich:
Epistemologically you may never prove to yourselves that the outside world
exists, but the framework of ontological understanding known as the MOQ has
as an essential foundation an "objective" evolution of Quality - beginning
with matter (sun/earth), forming bodies and societies and the (Imperfect)
representations of the aforementioned as conceived by individual intellects.
The beauty of his work is that these realities are themselves Value.
At first, I would have disagreed with you, Rich, just as Roger does above.
But after re-reading the first part of chapter 13, I think I get what you
are driving at. The "objective evolution of Quality" refers to the
evolution of the static levels. Taken as an evolutionary system, these
static levels are easily comprehended by S/O logic - Pirsig says so.
The harder thing for me to understand is, "The beauty of his work is that
these realities are themselves Value". Pirsig hammers this in over and over
throughout Lila, but also says, "...societies and thoughts and principles
themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These patterns can't
by themselves perceive or adust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can
do that."
Only a living being can do that. Pirsig is discussing "societies and
thoughts and principles". Within that context, to say that only a living
being can adjust to Dynamic Quality is to say that only a living being can
introduce change in society, thought, or principles. I don't believe Pirsig
intended to say that living beings are required to effect change at all
levels - only those at which living beings are in context. There is no
context in which living beings exist at the Inorganic level. There are no
inorganic patterns that support the existence of life *at that level*.
Pirsig seems to make a distinction between material things and patterns of
value. Repeatedly, he tells us that the thing does not have Value, Value
has the thing. Does he mean that the material world doesn't actually exist?
If so, is it something separate from the static levels of Value? Are
material things then actually 'only' manifestations of Values? If so, where
did the original 'material' of which they are composed come from? What
about causation? What are Values? Do these values exist if not manifested?
Does Pirsig answer my questions? (Teal PB page numbers)
pg 75: "Values are 'more' empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects."
pg 76: "What the MOQ would do is take this separate category, Quality, and
show how it contains within itself both subjects and objects ... Quality is
the primary empirical reality of the world...
Mary: Like Ford Motors, Quality is Job One.
pg 113: "The MOQ subscribes to what is called empiricism. ... all legitimate
human knowledge arises from the senses or by thinking about what the senses
provide."
Mary: I am relieved. The MOQ is not trying to establish itself as a
religion. So far, as Pirsig presents it, there is no requirement to suspend
disbelief in order to accept the MOQ.
pg 114: "The value is the reality that brings the thoughts to mind. ... a
thing that has no value does not exist. The thing has not created the
value. The value has created the thing."
Mary: Nothing exists independently of Value. That means my thought that
Value molds material reality into a 'thing of value' , that is, Value
changes the shape of pre-existing material reality - is false. Without the
Value the material thing is not there.
pg 116: "Substance is a subspecies of Value."
pg 120: "... substance is a derived concept, not anything that is directly
experienced. ... All people ever see is data."
Mary: Pirsig spells it out. If we don't have the data, the thing does not
exist. This leads me to ask, however, if Pirsig means that Pluto didn't
exist before it was discovered - or quarks, and I think he means yes, or at
least yes because it doesn't matter. If you have no data on which to base
an assertion (an assertion like Pluto does exist) then your statement
requires a suspension of disbelief among your followers. It becomes an
article of faith alone. That's not to say, however, that to know Pluto is
there you must see it with your own eyes. We can infer that a body resides
in space by the effect it has on the motion of other bodies in space.
Same with quarks. Let's say you went back in time to Isaac Newton's day and
you told him that there were 3 quarks in every proton and 3 in every
neutron. If you only had the scientific instruments and knowledge available
in his time with which to prove your assertion, you wouldn't be able to do
it. If Newton wanted to believe you he would have to do so based solely on
faith. You could not provide him with anything upon which to base a
'belief' in quarks.
Pg 119: "...'causation' can be replaced by 'value'.
pg 160" "All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward
Dynamic Quality."
Mary: In another post sometime back, someone asked how something that
started out as good already could be striving for good. I think Pirsig
answers this here. To me, at the most basic inorganic level preferences
were exercised that resulted in something good or satisfying to inorganic
things at the inorganic level. As more and more preferences were exercised
different preferences became possible. In each case, some of them worked
out (that is, were able to statically latch) while others didn't work
(couldn't latch) and disappeared. The ones that couldn't latch could be
considered bad preferences; so that today we are left with a continuous
chain of "good" (latched) preferences that have become more and more
complex. There are still an infinite number of latchable (good) and
unlatchable (bad) preferences out there to be tried, but at any given moment
one could say that everything that 'exists' is good on some level, while at
the same time those good things are still continuing to strive for some more
good (more latches).
More latches mean more stability. For a static pattern stability is good.
To boil it all down, Dynamic Quality itself is good because it enables the
existence of static quality and static latches; but this is not the same
thing as saying that all the results of a Dynamic Experience are always
good. Possibilities are neither good nor bad, they are just possibilities.
Dynamic Quality makes all possibilities available. Making them available is
good, but those possibilities don't become good themselves until latched.
pg 179: "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
originate out of society ... what a mind thinks is as dominated by social
patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns... Our
intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived."
Mary: This quote is one of the most disconcerting to me when combined with
"things that have no value do not exist". What a mind thinks is dominated
by its Social level patterns; or, put another way, what we Value is
dominated by Social level patterns. Is it then possible for an "actual"
separate reality containing 'things' to exist right in front of our nose
that we do not 'see' because we do not value it? If a valueless tree falls
in a valueless forest does it make a valueless sound?
If I had to summarize, I'd say Pirsig is telling us that there is no such
thing as SOM causation. There is no first cause; there is only Value. As
human beings our Social level has decided to 'value' finding a first cause,
so through religion and science we will keep searching for it; but won't
find it - since it does not exist. We will never find that 'first cause'
static latch. When you think about it, even if there was a first cause it
didn't have to statically latch. It was, after all the First Cause. It
didn't need a latch because it never need happen again. Latches are only
needed for things that are repeatable. Latches are only needed for
everything that follows First Cause. If the first cause did latch it
wouldn't be the First Cause anymore. It would be the Second Cause or Third.
As humans, we are the first Value expression that 'values' a first cause.
First causes were not valued by anything that came before us. It might be
interesting sometime, though, to examine why humanity needs First Cause so
much.
Discussion?
- Mary
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