Clark says:
One of the worrisome things to me about Pirsig's ideas (the MoQ) is
that he begins talking about universal quality but then drops back and
talks about Dynamic Quality which is seemingly only applied to
humanity.
David Lind says:
I'm looking for clarification. Where did the idea that Dynamic
Quality is only applied to humanity come from? Pirsig uses many
non-humanity based examples of dynamic quality. His whole take on
evolution, in my opinion, discusses how the inorganic and biological
levels are affected by dynamic quality.
So, it seems that the suggestion to split Quality into Universal
Quality and Dynamic Quality is uneccessary. Quality is Universal
Quality. And Dynamic Quality affects all the levels - it's not
limited to humanity. Nature is affected by Dynamic Quality as is
Humanity. I still think the cut Pirsig makes is the "most good."
It seems to me that much of your view fits within Pirsig's MOQ if you
eliminate your "Universal Quality" and just see that there is
"Quality" (undefinable) and that within this "Quality" there are two
types - Dynamic and Static. And that the social and intellectual
levels are those that affect and are affected by humanity.
Would love to hear more aout your view though. I'm not attacking it
- pointing out where I see it differently so as to test both our
positions.
Now, onto other matters. Am I alone in seeing "Pirsigs "many truths"
as "what is true now (given one's available experience)is not
necessarily ALWAYS or FOREVER true?" i.e. - that the world was flat
WAS true for those at that time (for all practical purposes - they
lived life as if it were true, so therefore for them it was true) and
now we have the truth that the world is round - based upon information
we possess that those who believed it was flat did not.
I don't see it as "many truths = everything is true" - just that
truth is that which, based upon available information, explains things
the best. I'm sure there are many things we see as "true" now, that
will in the future, be shown to be "not true." Doesn't make them any
less true NOW, does it?
Ken writes:
First let me say that I agree with you that looked at in your way
(just as correct) the universe is still a moral universe by virtue of
Quality.
David Lind writes:
I agree, but there seems to be a repetitive confusion about morality.
That the universe is a moral universe doesn't mean that what's most
moral always happens. Just like a parent who wants what's best for
their child doesn't always do what's best for them. I believe that
the "morality" of the universe is a structure. Most of the times what
happens is the most moral, but when events happen that are not the
most moral, the path that was created eventually dies out.
I still think that there is confusion about "moral" and "what we
think is the "right" thing to do. (As with Victorian "morality").
And being limited by our perception of Quality (we can never fully
understand Quality at this point of our existence - we are limited by
the intellectual ceiling) - we may not realize that while something
seems immoral ("wrong") - it may actually be Moral (having the highest
level of Quality).
Walter says:
I agree with this too as long as this responsability on humanity is
for humanity itself and (therefore also for) it's environment or
habitat. Not for Quality.
David Lind writes:
again, I agree. If Quality is all there is, how could we be
responsible for it? We are affected by it, but to be responsible for
it, seems to imply that we are outside of it somehow.
If Quality is all there is and Dynamic Quality is like a river that
we are standing in (ever changing, ever flowing), we are affected by
it and we can even attempt to affect it - dam it up, divert the
stream, etc... but can we ever truly change it? Even if we go to the
source and try to block it up - the force of the river will find a way
to circumvent out efforts. It will still exist. Quality is not
omething we can affect.
Clark wrote:
...this removes universal quality from human concerns and leaves the
whole question of morality and good and ethics solely dependent on
the level of understanding of individual humans.
David Lind writes:
If you subsitute "Quality" for "Universal Quality" - I don't see that
it makes a difference.
If all there is is Quality, we are surrounded by Quality. It can't
be removed from human concerns. We may not always look to "Quality"
for our decisions, but I don't think we can ever be removed from it.
Eventually, like the river, Quality will find a way into our lives.
And ultimately, I don't see that there i a way to have it be any other
way. People will make decisions based upon what they SEE as the most
good. (And isn't that Moral?) Note - I didn't say they make
decisions that are the most good, but well all do what we do because
it is in our view, the most good. I challenge anyone to come up with
an example of someone doing something other than what they see as the
most good.
Clark wrote:
I am sure that many, maybe all, of you will be shocked by this
radical restructuring of the way that Quality operates in the
universe.
David Lind writes:
Not shocked. Just disagree. I honestly believe the cuts you make
lead to more confusion. I also believe that the best answer to a
question or to a phenomenom is the one that's the simplest. So,
Pirsig's Quality is all and then the Dynamic/Static cut is the
clearest, simplest answer to life (at this point). I see it as "true"
(not necessarily "The Truth") - someone someday may come up with a
simpler answer, knocking Pirig's answer into the category of "what
used to be true, but isn't."
I guess for me, the bottom line is "Does it work?" Does Pirsig's MOQ
explain life? For me, it does. As we dig, we may find apparent
contradictions or differing interpretations - welcome to quality :o)
The very fact that we can't define Quality (we can only attempt to
describe or distinguish it) - is going to lead to potential confusion.
Clark, your opinion seems to be that if we had a "Univeral Quality"
that somehow life would be easier to figure out or Moral decisions
would be clearer. If my take on what you think is correct, here's
what I have to say (if my take is incorrect, let me know where I'm off
and ignore the next few lines) :o) We already have this in Pirsig's
MOQ. I don't see a difference between his "Quality" and your
"Universal Quality" (remember, I don't think he limits "Quality" to
humanity). So, having this, doesn't make moral decisions easier. I
think that life is about not having a clear answer to everything (we'd
be living in a very static world if there were). On the other hand,
I'm not saying give up the fight. What makes life dynamic for me is
knowing that there is no answer (ultimately) yet, our desire is to
find one. It's when we get hung up on finding the "right" answer that
we get stuck. I don't think we'll find it. Doesn't stop me from
looking though :o)
Tor says:
So now I've got DQ rippling up and down the levels, but the
source-spark has to be at the inorganic level, I can't get by this
source spark bit without all layers becoming deterministic because
they are implemented by the layers below...
This may sound more harsh than I intend, it boils down to the fact
that you can't implement randomness in a deterministic system
David Lind writes:
Isn't the source spark within Quality itself? Wouldn't the source
spark need to be outside of (before the) first level? In my opinion
the heirarchy would go like this: Quality-(source spark)-Inroganic
level. The source spark occuring just before the inorganic level came
to be.
Clark says:
Tor, keep in mind that this interacting DQ and SQ that is rippling
up and down the system is unimaginably complex because it has been
doing this from the beginning and thus is continually creating and
filling possibilities. My view of the matter is that the universe is a
deterministic system but because of the complexity that has been
generated in bringing the universe to its present condition there is
no way that we can ever trace the deterministic pathway. In my view we
are now living in what is effectively a non-deterministic universe
because of this impenetrable complexity.
David Lind writes:
Another way to look at this is that it's much simpler than that.
There is Quality. This is subdivided into Dynamic and Static Quality.
Dynamic Quality drives life. Static latches are created to hang on
to the good. There are a lot of possibilities, but rather than trying
to imagine every single possibility - classify them under the heading
"possibilities" and we've put them into a bite we can handle. Just
trying to keep things simple. :o)
Clark says:
David, this is exactly my reason for wanting to pin the "many
truths" function to a fixed level of morality as it would emanate from
universal Morality.
David Lind writes:
Again, I don;t think we can ever have a "fixed level of morality."
Morality is directly connected to (is in fact the same as) Quality.
To have it be "fixed" means it is no longer dynamic. Quality
(Morality) can not be "fixed." Morality/Quality will always be
outside the realm of static.
Ken Clark writes:
Under the influence of universal Morality the inorganic and
biological levels would present a stable universal moral platform and
the social and intellectual levels would present the current ongoing
interplay between universal Morality and human Morality.
David Lind writes:
Isn't this already the case with the MOQ? If Quality = Morality and
the universe is a "moral order" - don't we already have the moral
base? The only difference seems to be in the fact that MOQ has the
interplay be between Quality and the social and intellectual levels.
Ken Clark writes:
In this way the totality of our present universal morality situation
in the universe would be presented to each individual regardless of
their individual levels of awareness, and thus have some continuous,
ongoing impact on their perception of "truths".
It should have a restraining influence on any unethical human
behavior or attitudes and bring the "many truths" position to a higher
plane and thus closer to a final common ground.
David Lind writes:
Again, I don't see how what you presented would end up any different
than life as seen through MOQ.
Well....time to run. Thanks for bearing with me as I shared my
views.
Shalom
David Lind
Trickster@postmark.net
"Life is too simple for complicated minds."
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 - 16:03:14 BST