ROGER REPLIES TO JC, PLATT AND DAVID .
ALL IN ONE POST!
JC:
"..the static situation is an enemy of life itself." Isn't life
itself a manifestation of static quality on the biological level? I better
go find the quote in it's whole context.
ROGER:
P 411 in the paperback. It is about the creative drive in some people. As to
whether life is a manifestation of sq, consider perhaps that it's the battle,
the struggle, the driving or evolving force that represents life. Could life
be more accurately characterized as the struggle than by the patterns?
Pirsig suggests something similar on the next page.
JC:
Call me an optimist but I don't think it's possible to formulate a moral
dilemma that the MOQ can't solve. Now there's a challenge for ya. That's
hard and fast and over the plate, eh? Moral dilemmas come about because
of conflicts on different levels. MOQ resolves all moral dilemmas because
it keeps the levels discreet.
ROGER:
Cool, lets give it a go..... I am keeping an open mind.
ROG PREVIOUSLY WROTE:
>I suggest that I will agree with much of your framing and the process you go
>through on each problem, I just doubt I think you can accurately use the MOQ
>to write some manual on every moral dilemma and the static frozen answers.
>Static answers are the antithesis of the MOQ.
JC RESPONDED:
Whoops! The MOQ _is_ a static solution itself. Every static problem has a
static solution. The solution is always within the definition of the
problem. Ain't no doubt about that is there?
ROGER:
Agreed. It is life and ultimate reality which is not static. I will concur
that there are static answers to static problems. The question is whether
reality is accurately framed in the problem. I think there ain't no doubt
'bout that either. But I am Solipso-mystic man (David's
characterisation....not mine by a mile).
But to pull out my Pirsig quoting James...... " There must always be a
discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and
discontinous while the latter are flowing and dynamic."
JC:
The MOQ is a map like any other. I judge it the best map I've seen so far
because at least it aknowledges that it is only a map. The best we can
hope for is that it will get us to our destination. That's all any map can
do and all that can be expected of it. But since we know the destination
DQ is off the map, we can't really put it IN the map. Right?
ROGER:
Exactly. Pure experience...DQ...cannot ever be mapped. Concepts are never
the entirety of reality.
JC:
How about making the map as accurate as possible? Making it conform to
every single detail of the cosmos in every particle, and write large all
over it NOT HERE. The advantage of such a map is that not only would it be
useful for pointing to DQ, but it'd also be useful as a guide in the
everyday world.
So see? some people are trying to Define all Reality perfectly and others
are scribbling all over every detail, NOT HERE. Perfect map making team
and a perfect map that guides people to that which is best. Another moral
dilemma solved by the MOQ.
ROGER:
You lost me..... I need a better map or at least a clearer explanation on
this one.
JC:
Ya know I bet if we ever did get to that mysterious destination we'd
find lots of other journeyers there - and they'd all have different maps.
ROGER:
Good point.
***************AND NOW TO PLATT..........
PLATT:
Thanks Roger for the invitation to jump back in. Your quotes from
Pirsig led me to this one:
“Sometimes the contrary anti-static drive becomes a static pattern
of its own.”
Could it be that your “dynamic” position has become static?
ROGER:
Probably. It is getting there quickly ....
PLATT:
Like David B. pointed out, you can’t have dynamic without static
any more than you can have many without one or black without
white. Pirsig points out the necessity for static patterns many
times.
I like the idea expressed here--balance and harmony with a
prejudice towards the dynamically new and fresh. It appeals to my
aesthetic sense.
ROGER:
Mine too.
PLATT:
The main message I take away from your posts is that moral
decisions should be made PROVISIONALLY -- a code of conduct
that science has built into its philosophy which is one of the
reasons for its success. Pirsig calls New York the most dynamic
place in the world because “New York’s never been committed to
any preservation of static patterns. It’s always ready to change.”
“Hold on to what’s good, but be ready to change to something
better.” That concept appeals to me as a “good” moral stance to
take, and your posts have helped to clarify it for me.
ROGER:
And yours mine....Thanks!
PLATT:
I’m really looking forward to how David B. handles your moral
dilemma hardballs. The ideas you two have batted back and forth in
recent posts have been terrific.
ROGER:
Oh no you don't. If I can come up with tough questions....or better yet WE
come up with...... then I hope you and jc take a stab at them too.
***********AND FINALLY BACK TO DAVID...
DMB WROTE:
But, but , but Roger, you've got Pirsig contradicting himself. That
can't be right. It must be a problem with interpetation. A war of quotes
can be a useful exercise, but you're just using mysticism as a
philosophical monkey wrench. I mean, the topic is the MOQ's "moral
compass", which certainly includes the levels and the codes, but you're
quoting Pirsig's references to Mysticism and Dynamic Quality itself,
both of which are beyond static patterns.
ROGER (SOLIPSO-MYSTIC MAN?):
That is because I believe the ultimate moral judge to be DQ...direct
experience.... not the static model. This is what most of the above quotes
reference. We always go back to this fundamental difference where you
reference reality as patterns, and I reference it as preconceptual
experience. Yours is 'value patterns', mine is 'quality events.'
DMB:
Don't get me wrong, DQ clearly
has a place in Pirsig's universe, but the method of analysis absolutely
requires clear thoughts and such. This is philosophy, not meditation. In
this forum and in this discussion we need facts and reason.
ROGER:
And we need to realize that the final moral code goes beyond logic. "Dq is a
higher moral order than static scientific truth and it is as immoral for
philosophers of science to try to supress DQ as it is for church leaders to
try to supress scientific method." He goes on to point out that DQ is the
cutting edge of scientific progress itself. And that DQ is PURE EXPERIENCE.
(p419)
DMB:
You can use Pirsig's mysticism as an excuse for imprecision.
ROGER:
Yes David, one can.
DMB:
I probably don't need to say it again but for the new-comers, I think
the MOQ not only explains the true nature of Mysticism itself, it also
describes a universe every Mystic can love. But that does NOT contradict
the fact that we live in a world of static patterns.
ROGER:
The base of Reality (as Pirsig refers to it on p428) is DQ. It is our
concepts of reality and our concepts of ourselves which are static and
discontinuous. In the MOQ, reality is value, and value is more of an event
than it is a thing or pattern.Reality is divided first into pure experience
and the patterns that are created in the wake of this experience. I do not
deny your patterns David, but I see them as a pale shadow of full reality.
DMB:
Yes, the ultimate
goal is to transcend all that in favor of Dynamism, but static values
are necessary to that process. As the author of the Guidebook once said,
"You've got to have a mind to loose." He meant that there is a
difference between ignorance and transcendence. I'm saying you're
ignorant. That's the last thing I'd ever call you.
ROGER:
Then I hope this wasn't a Freudian slip?
DMB:
Yes, the mystic must
abandon all static patterns, but she's got to have something to abandon.
And as the stories go, the hero returns home and shares the fruits of
the journey. The mystic doesn't want to keep the open secret, and so
returns to the world as an act of sacrifice. Not that the stories are
ture in a literal way, but they illustrate the same idea; SQ and DQ are
the whole thing together. The very name "Lila" means the cosmic dance
between the two.
ROGER:
Well now yer talkin'!!
DMB:
Don't we agree that SQ and DQ are both necessary to the overall picture?
Wouldn't "dynamic philosophizing" be an IMPOSSIBLE thing to do? As
philosophers, aren't we SUPPOSED to deal with intellectual static
patterns?
ROGER:
Not at all. See the Pirsig quote above. DQ is the drive to form and to
improve metaphysics. It is the evolutionary impulse.
DMB;
Ha! I call myself a romantic and a mystic, but you've got me crying over
the lack of scientific accuracy and rational analysis. Go figure.
ROGER:
As Platt says, we can argue ourselves into a corner, into a pattern that
serves more to limit than to help. Of course you and I never need to worry
bout that now do we Bro'?
Big wet kisses
Roger
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 - 16:03:16 BST