Rich David Roger and all philosophers,
Chapter 17 has a lot to say about DQ in terms of morality.
After praise of the PROVISIONALITY of the scientific method, which
allows evolutionary growth, Pirsig concludes...
As Phaedrus has written on one of his slips of paper, "The pencil is
mightier than the pen".
"That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality
SIMULTANEOUSLY. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific
knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you don't
have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from any
further growth."
Pirsig has described the moral codes and the levels in previous
chapters, but in 17 the focus is on the Dynamic aspect of his moral
universe. That is to say, Pirsig goes into the details of the meaning
behind the 5th code, the code of Art. (Maybe this is why Roger wanted me
to read the second half of the book?)
We want to "keep" the static patterns and levels in the picture, but the
fifth code demands that we strike a balance because there is BIG
difference between evolution and degeneracy. This principle applies not
only in the scientific method, Pirsig refers to Robert's Rules and
constitutions and their jury erasers in this context too.
Simultaneously, that's the whole thing.
GIANTS AND JELLYFISH NEED DQ TOO
The intellectual level is most dynamic and can change most rapidly, but
this same idea applies at the social level too; NY city is the most
dynamic place on earth and there's no doubt that it is the cultural
capitol of the Nation. ( Well, not since Guliani cleaned up Times Square
and legalized torture, but you know what I mean.) There is something
that holds the "Giant" together, but she's always ready to change.
And Pirsig even mentions how the biological quality in Lila chooses her
bed partners DYNAMICALLY, even though "She doesn't see intellectual
quality at all. It's outside her range. She doesn't even see social
quality." Without the benifit of the top two levels, Lila can still be
dynamic. Shake your booty.
And according to this same principle, there is uncertainty even for
inorganic static patterns.
The sun'll come up tommorrow. You can bet your bottom dollar
that....tomorrow..
THE PART ROGER CAN LOVE
The basic principle behind the fifth moral code is... Its wrong to
supress evolution. One way to be wrong is to be too locked into static
patterns, to resist change. The other way is to become degenerate, to go
back with the caveman. The fifth moral code applies at all levels, but
it doesn't undo the static levels, its about that simultaneous-ness. But
here's the quote Roger might have used in the war...
"When you define morality scientifically as that which enhances
evolution it sounds as though you have really solved the problem of what
morality is. But when you try to say specifically what is and what isn't
EVOLUTION and where EVOLUTION IS GOING, you find you are right back in
the soup again. The problem is that you can't really say whether a
SPECIFIC CHANGE is evolutionary at the time it occurs. It is only with a
century or so of hindsight that it appears
evolutionary."
As you can guess by my added emphasis, the kind of skepticism Roger
expresses seems most valid in this respect. Moral conflicts between
static patterns and the levels are concrete and certain compared to
analyzing change and revolution. That's like telling the future. Who
knows what strange fad will catch on, or what obscure novelist will be
the 25th century's Shakesphere? Who knows if Pirsig will fade into
obscurity or not? As Phaedrus said when he finally arrived at the idea
of static quality itself, :"Better dig in and do some static
latching..."
DMB
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