From: bahna@rpi.edu
Date: Fri Jan 10 2003 - 23:59:42 GMT
To MOQ's and all,
This is a short metaphor for Pirsig's MOQ. I realize the Lila Squad and
MOQ'rs have been discussing the MOQ a long while and a new interpretation
is probably not going to go very far, but I had an insight while reflecting
on a private conversation I had with Matt (the endorphin). I am sharing it
because I like to contribute periodically to the discussion here and I
think it might help clarify some of the problems I have with the MOQ for
others with similar hang-ups. The inspiration for this comes from a little
parable that opens Richard Bach's "Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant
Messiah" (the parable is in the beginning in the hand-written journal
entry). I first read Illusions many years ago and it probably had a
greater impact on my life and worldview than Pirsig's ZMM or Lila (any
"Bach squads" or "Reluctant Messiahs.org" out there in cyberspace?). I
think this might fall under what Matt has called "radically interpreting
Pirsig." No analogy can ever be perfect, and I am sure there will be some
comments finding the faults in this one. It never hurts to throw something
new out there, however if it helps someone gain a new foothold.
The parable is about these creatures clinging to the bottom of a fast
moving river. It is the whole thrust of their lives, clinging. They cling
all day long. It is the only way they know how to live. There are
stories of creatures that have stopped clinging and nobody ever hears from
them again. There are myths of another land downstream and people who can
live in the fast moving current without clinging to the bottom, but these
are just stories or myths. Nobody really dares to stop clinging to the
bottom. Clinging to the bottom has its disadvantages, but it is all the
creatures know how to do and the only way they are taught to live.
I always loved the way this book begins. This parable struck me as very
profound. I have forgot about it over the years, but somehow it sprang to
my mind while walking home from the coffee shop and thinking of the
conversation with Matt and other things concerned with the whole MOQ crowd.
One thing that always bothered me about Lila was the levels. I loved
Pirsig's remarks on quality and his splitting it in two: static and
dynamic quality. But I had a hard time buying his analogy about the
levels: inorganic, biological, social and intellectual. Each level emerges
out of the level below and is thus interpreted as superior or higher
quality than the one below. I think he just chose a bad metaphor. I know
what he was getting at, but the metaphor does not work for me.
I have been interested in emergence and complex systems for some time,
because of the work I do in economics. In complex systems there are
bifurcations where a system branches out or a new pattern develops due to
an increase in the flow of energy or materials through an open system. It
is what Prigogine calls a dissipative structure. It partially explains the
decrease in entropy found in biological system. Anyway, the biological
emerges out of the inorganic. This is the origin of life. Evolution comes
along and intelligence is selected as organisms adapt to their
surroundings. Organisms with better "internal models" (John Holland's
term) have a greater chance for survival. Eventually we get some organisms
that are pretty damn intelligent (those would be us). When intelligent
creatures interact through language, society is created. Thus, in the view
of complexity, we have: inorganic-biological-intelligence-society. You see
I can't buy Pirsig's analogy because it doesn't fit my paradigm, but yet I
am digging the whole thing about dynamic and static quality. I also
understand, somewhat, where he is coming from with the idea of intellectual
level. I think democracy is a good thing, free markets for private goods,
and other institutions too, but these, it seems to me, belong in the social
level. He has not created a very good metaphor for what he is trying to
describe. It doesn't work (for me). It never can.
In the caffeine-induced state while walking home, I think, I discovered a
solution. Bach's parable of the creatures is the better analogy. Dynamic
quality is the stream. Static quality is clinging. When we cling to the
bottom we are in the social level (most of us). In the social level, where
most people cling, the current is slow and the water is murky with
sediment. Most of us can cling to something and let go and cling to
something new, never leaving this shallow murky pool. We can just sort of
wade from one spot to another grabbing on to the selection of philosophies
or worldviews put before us. But sometimes, someone stops clinging and
escapes the pool to venture off downstream, like Pirsig. What happens is
they get bounced along the rocks by the current, until they find something
they can grab on to, because it hurts to be bounced on the rocks. They are
clinging again but there is nobody else around and the current is very
fast. Once you stop clinging and let the current sweep you away it is very
difficult to swim back upstream where everyone else is clinging. So Pirsig
starts collecting other creatures that have stopped clinging upstream and
are now bouncing on the rocks toward him. It feels much better for these
creatures to cling again to Pirsig and it is refreshing to be in the faster
current where the water is cleaner than where everyone else was clinging
before. It also feels better for Pirsig to share this new piece of river
bottom with other creatures. Eventually more creatures join them until a
large group of creatures are clinging to Pirsig and sediment begins to fill
in the gaps and the current slows down and the water becomes, once again,
murky. The creatures are back again in the social level.
This continues on. Solitary creatures let go (stop clinging) and the
current carries them away. Eventually they cling to a new spot and others
join them there. Society marches on downstream through the interaction of
static and dynamic quality. The intellectual level is only the few brave
sorts leading the pack, being bounced along the rocks. It is dangerous
business leading the pack also, because letting go from society can also
mean never getting back. What if you find a new spot to cling to where no
other creatures want to join you? This is insanity. It is a very thin
line between genius and insanity, as most of us know.
Up near the mouth of the stream is the biological level and, you know what,
the current is fast there also and the water is clean. The biological
level is not any better or worse than the social or intellectual level. It
is just further upstream. Clinging to the biological level feels good. It
feels better than the social level where the current is the slowest and the
water is dirty. But to go from the biological to the intellectual you need
to go through the social level. There is an upstream and a downstream, but
there is not a purpose, other than not to stand still and cling forever.
There is no guarantee that what is downstream is better than the spot where
we are currently clinging to (perhaps Niagara Falls is up ahead, we won't
know until we get there). We just know we have to keep moving and that is
what society does; slowly it moves - with the current.
DMB and Platt, and other "unfallen" priests, think the MOQ is the answer
because the current is still swift there and the water is cleaner than
where the rest of society is. They don't want to let go of Pirsig knowing
there are rocks waiting in the fast current and the rocks can be painful.
The MOQ is static quality. Mapping Lila with an index gives more for new
creatures to grab onto and muddies the water. Is this a worthwhile
project, or should they let go again letting dynamic quality sweep them
away? You see the trick is to be able to swim in dynamic quality and avoid
the rocks. But this means a life away from society - all alone. An
exhilarating life it might be, but there will be nobody to share it with.
The ones who are able to do this are the mystics DMB associates the MOQ
with. Pirsig wants to live with the mystics - in the stream, without
clinging. But this is not describable. Once, you decide to put your
experience into words you begin clinging again.
Here is the clincher - Language is static quality. Life is dynamic
quality. When we cling we hold on to a description of reality. Many
things, such as quality, are beyond description. They are indefinable, but
that does not mean they do not exist, as Pirsig makes clear. Quality is a
metaphor, a word, for a particular aspect of reality we cannot ever
properly define. Pirsig has split this word into two, static and dynamic.
The static is a word or a sentence we tend to cling to as a description.
The static continually changes over time as we attempt to redefine reality
over and over again. The dynamic, DQ, is another word or metaphor (thus DQ
is also static quality - the word or phrase) describing what can't be put
into words. (IMHO, what Pirsig has merely done here is put off his
investigation into the meaning of quality by splitting it into two and
leaving DQ undefined)
Language is the defining characteristic of society. Without an ability to
communicate, the distinguishing feature defining humans as "intelligent"
does not exist. In this case, our large brains are purely used for
perceiving the world and storing the data. And then we react to these
perceptions without any self-reflection. Neanderthals had a larger brain
cavity than modern humans, but the positioning of their larynx didn't allow
them a capacity for sound modulation in order for speech to develop. They
(admittedly only - arguably) had greater computational powers and storage
capacity than us, but they lacked a complex language consisting of the many
symbols and characters needed for describing reality. (This does not mean
they did not form social groups - for it is obvious - many animals do. It
means they did not have rapidly developing and evolving social
institutions.)
Language is a gift of an individual's culture or society and thus all
descriptions of reality are filtered through the lenses of an individual's
society. Letting go of society or no longer clinging means no longer
perceiving reality through these lenses. In order for an individual to
begin clinging again they must find or develop a new grammar, or
vocabulary, and this is what Pirsig did with the MOQ and what many continue
to do at MOQ.org. There is no guarantee this is a better description of
reality than the previous description further upstream, but it is surely
not a perfectly accurate description. For that can only be known by
letting go again and swimming in the stream (or dancing with the wu-li
masters, pick your metaphor).
I can imagine sharing a life with someone else in dynamic quality, but you
wonder if this might only be a pipedream. Two people swimming along in the
current smiling at one another without being able to put into words their
experiences. Each just content to keep swimming along into new uncharted
territories. I suppose Utopia would be a society of people who are no
longer clinging and letting the current carry them along together. This
would not be a society, though. At least not a society as we know it.
I think I am content to just bounce along the bottom only letting go for
short periods of time. With some practice I have have managed to acoid
most of the rocks. I enjoyed clinging to Pirsig for a short while, but it
became time to move on and find someone new to cling on to. Someday, as
most of us aspire to also, perhaps I will begin to create a new vocabulary
for others to cling to. Hmmmm...
Andy
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 Jan 10 2003 - 23:59:54 GMT