Rich, Horse, David, Julie and Squad,
A very interesting thread you have going here.
Rich says:
In ZMM, P states that Quality is neither subjective nor objective.
Scientific instruments don't detect it and it's existence does not arise
from personal opinion. Rather, it is that undefinable creator of
objects/bodies and emotions/thoughts about them.
Clark says:
To me, this is a good definition of Quality but rather general as I look
at it. To me Quality is the range of possibilities that came into existence
in the beginning of the Universe. I have no idea what brought the Universe
into existence or whether it has always been in existence. That is the big
mystery, but the set of conditions that we think came into being at the
beginning of the universe can logically be held responsible for everything
that has happened since. Beginning with the presumed initial store of
hydrogen and helium plus the energy that the process contained to my mind
sets the initial conditions to produce everything else. In this sense
Quality is the creator of everything.
Because the initial set of conditions determined the future course of the
universe then everything that follows the prescribed pattern is good and
has value by definition.
Horse says:
Only for the sake of 'backward compatibility'. Subject and object are
really completely irrelevant in MOQ as are the ideas of 'I', 'You', 'We'
etc. and a great number of other ideas. They are a convenience and
are mainly retained due to their linguistic attachment to the past:
"This fictitious 'man' has many synonyms: 'mankind', 'people', 'the
public', and even such pronouns as 'I', 'he' and 'they'. Our language is
so organized around them and they are so convenient to use, it is
impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
'substance', they can be used as long as it is remembered that
they're terms for collections of patterns and not some independent
reality of their own." (Pirsig, Chapter 12, Lila)
Clark says:
It seems to me that what I said above agrees with what Pirsig is saying
here, that the complete sweep of universal evolution is a collection of
patterns which are all universally interdependent all of which are good and
have value simply because all events are compatible with the initial
conditions. As far as the inorganic phase of evolution is concerned the
best course of evolution was selected over time, through trial and error,
and has resulted in the universe as we think we observe it today. Again,
all is good and has value because it has produced the universe and us. We
are incapable of seeing the universe as anything but good and having value
because we are a compatible part of it.
David B. says:
Those static patterns of reality that sort of issue out of
the undifferentiated continuum (DQ), like chair with all it's dharma,
are seen in an entirely different light when they are seen as having
arisen from Quality. Everything has to do with Quality, even minds and
bodies. Pirsig is trying to persuade us that values and morality are not
just principles invented by economists and theologians, they are a
fundamental aspect of the entire universe.
Clark says:
Exactly.
David B. says:
The values, the morality of our ego consciousness isn't something our
minds gave birth to, rather Quality, through evolution, gave birth to
out minds. That's the Copernican revolution in his metaphysics. Quality
isn't just in your mind, its everywhere.
Clark says:
If we look at Quality as being a general term for the initial set of
conditions in the universe which then prescribed the general course of
inorganic evolution then quality is the process by which we arrived at our
present situation and is responsible for everything that has happened
since.
When we come to the evolution of life the situation changes from the
purely inorganic evolution. All forms of life can make some sort of choices
and thus, however slight, affect the course of evolution.
It is when we get to sentience that the problems get harder. At the
moment we cannot see how we can have much effect on the evolution of the
universe at large but we certainly can on earth, at least with regard to
our own species and the other life on earth. That is why I prefer to regard
Quality as universal Quality applying to the entire universe and Dynamic
Quality as applying to the human species only, or at least to life only.
That is the point at which Quality became modified by Dynamic Quality so
that we can no longer regard evolution as on a relatively fixed course with
respect to earth.
Julie says:
My question on the above is: what do you mean by "chemical events
are ethical?" do you mean that there is no such thing as the mind, that
mind is a biological artifact of chemical operations in the structure of
the brain? Curious Julie.
>
Julie says:
> As for the mind - being the combination of the social and
intellectual
> levels manifested in each unique individual - yes, it exists. Yes, it
grows
> from the bio-chemical events in the brain."
If you believe the above to be true, then a tree has a mind, everything has
a mind? Personally I don't have a problem with the idea of it at all. I
believe the whole universe from atoms to planets and solar systems to be a
part of mind, but I also believe that "mind" exists independent of matter,
it just uses matter to give it form. For my part, "mind" is more than just
a biological artifact. This is a personal grudge argument of mine, as I
spent three years arguing this during my psychology degree. The notable
professor stated quite catergorically that "there was no such thing as mind
and no self respecting psychologist would discuss such a thing" however he
couldn't answer my question " well, then what is it that self-respects?" If
mind is "just" (Pirsig had a lot to say about this word if I remember) a
biological artifact, doesn't this raise "ethical" questions about
"persistent vegetative sydrome." The biological chemical processes are
still there, being kept operative by machines, how then can we justify
switching the machine off, "mind" would still be there?
Clark says:
I agree with Julie. Mind is a product of the chemical evolution of the
brain but due to increasing complexity has gained a large measure of
independence from the purely biological function. A tree does not have a
mind, nor does a person(?) suffering from persistent vegetative syndrome.
In both cases the entities are stuck in the purely biological phase of
evolution. Both have the necessary brain function to maintain life but not
enough to maintain independence of action.
I am getting lost in the complexities of these arguments but it seems to
me that all of you are getting to the nut of Pirsig's intentions. Ken
Clark.
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 - 16:03:09 BST