From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 07:53:21 GMT
Hi Platt,
Thanks for these. I want to try and get this as clear and as well supported
as I can (so that I can then make my own point as clear and well supported
as I can....)
>
> > Sometimes, a DQ driven evolution constitutes an evolutionary leap.
>
> Sometimes, a DQ driven evolution creates an evolutionary leap.
Agreed.
> > These static latches form the known world. They are the stable forms of
> > Quality.
>
> These static latches plus DQ form the known world. They are the forms
> of Quality.
My thinking here was that DQ cannot be known (cannot be described, cannot be
defined); so DQ is the 'boundary' of what is known, along the lines of old
map makers 'here there be monsters'. So what can actually be known are only
the static latches. I'm wondering whether 'patterns' would be a better word
than 'forms'?
>
> > The social level is
> > shaped by moral laws (eg against murder, adultery, theft) which are
> > enforced by policemen and priests.
>
> The social level is shaped by laws, customs, mores and religious
> practices (eg against murder, adultery, theft) which are enforced by
> soldiers, policemen, parents and priests.
Agreed.
> > The intellectual level is the level of symbolic social learning, the
same
> > as mind. It is the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in
the
> > brain, that stand for patterns of experience. The DQ innovation and
static
> > latch which enabled the intellectual level to come into being has not
been
> > satisfactorily determined.
>
> The intellectual level is the level of self-awareness, sometimes called
> the "bicameral mind." It arose sometime between the building of the
> pyramids in 2500 BC and the birth of Pythagorus in 500 BC when a
> social unit first Dynamically conceived of "I" as being separate from
> "we." The static latch was the hero myth and the division of experience
> into I-We (eg self-other, subject-object) led to the development of the
> law of identity as the basis for logic, science and mathematics.
This is where things get a bit sticky, as I'm trying not to prejudice the
description with my own criticisms. To that end (although I didn't put the
quote marks in; I should have done) the first two sentences from my text
above are Pirsig's own (from his notes to LC). At one point I did start
writing about self-awareness, and I have much sympathy with your
description. Pirsig says:
"The word "I" like the word "self" is one of the trickiest words in any
metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a human body; sometimes it is a
subject, a human mind. I believe there are number of philosophic systems,
notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call the "I" or "individual" the
central reality. Buddhists say it is an illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ
says it is a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic
Quality. I think that if you identify the "I" with the intellect and nothing
else you are taking an unusual position that may need some defending."
I agree with this, although I would say that the 'individual' that I was
originally talking about is a collection of static patterns which function
at the fourth level (if they functioned at the third level then - I think -
they wouldn't experience DQ, they would experience fourth level quality AS
DQ. I still have to think that through).
I would be interested to know how other people might comment on my original
description of the fourth level. I would be happy to shift it more in the
direction you indicate, although Pirsig also says in one of his notes that
'before history began' the intellect existed (I think that's a direct
support for Wim's position, although there's still room to quibble about
details).
> No changes in the next two paragraphs. I especially like your summary
> sentence, "That will probably be the struggle of the twenty first
century,"
> referring to struggle against biological patterns which threaten to devour
> social patterns. (I presume you consider terrorists to be biological
> patterns.)
Hmmm. Going a bit off topic in that last parenthesis :o) My position has
moved a little since my 'four theses' post about 9/11, but the only part of
that which I would now wish to change is thesis two about how far the West
was responsible (so my answer is still as given in thesis one, terrorism is
a pathologically low quality intellectual pov, a pattern which is
subservient to a particular social pattern). I now consider that I was wrong
about Western responsibility, and that wrongness was serious (this is the
element which you and Rog persuaded me about; which led me to try and
understand conservatism more clearly than I had, which led to my recent
series of posts with David...). The underlying point that I was trying to
make was the 'draining of the swamp' image (which I still think has some
truth, see my post of 18/9), but I would now want to argue forcefully that
the most morally relevant criterion for judgement is the decisions of
individual terrorists (the 9/11 terrorists) to carry out their heinous acts.
I don't think that the Chechnya situation (and the Moscow hostage taking) is
analogous to 9/11. Although they were careless (and therefore morally
culpable) in their use of the gas, I would tend to viewing the use of the
gas, in context, as a moral act. I think (I haven't got properly stuck in to
the details, to be honest).
> Incidentally, you might want to check out the Principles section in
> "Lila's Child" where Bo, Ant and myself also offered summaries of the
> MoQ.
That was what inspired me. As Pirsig himself has already described them as
excellent, there is no need for me to gild the lily :o)
Sam
www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:33:33 GMT