From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 22 2003 - 01:10:41 GMT
Hello Johnny,
JOHNNY
> I've seen that paragraph, but I'm afraid I can't figure out how it
applies.
RICK
You wanted to talk about the MoQ "burden of proof" that Platt and I
briefly touched on in the 'Changes' thread. A 'burden of proof' (in this
sense) is an argumentative tie-breaker. It tells us how the argument should
come out in the event it's too close to call in all other respects. The
paragraph I cited is one of the parts of LILA in which Pirsig explicitly
tells us that in the MoQ such disputes should be resolved in favor of the
more Dynamic choice. That's how it applies.
JOHNNY
> Without getting back into any specific argument, it just seems to me that
> anyone can claim that their desired course is at a higher level than the
> established pattern that is in their way.
RICK
Yes Johnny, anyone can claim anything they'd like. There are no easy or
automatic answers and human beings are still going to have to argue over
things like which choice is really more Dynamic and whether 'all other
things' are equal or not. No metaphysics will make us unanimous on such
issues. The best we can hope of a philosophy is that it can draw our
attention to the issues which are more worthwhile to argue about.
But ultimately, the real value of the rule of thumb in the paragraph I
cited to you comes not in partisan argumentation, but rather, in the
sorting-out of honestly held beliefs. If you honestly can't perceive any
substantial difference between two courses of action other than that one
seems somehow more Dynamic than the other, the Metaphysics of Quality would
urge you to make the Dynamic choice.
JOHNNY
> And I think even if it could be determined that something was "more
> dynamic", it still would be immoral if it involved breaking established
> patterns.
RICK
Your point of view would mean that Rosa Parks was immoral for not going
to the back of the bus; Socrates was immoral for choosing reason over the
mythos; Phaedrus was immoral for rejecting SOM and turning to Quality;
Copernicus was immoral for rejecting the idea that the sun goes round the
Earth; James Madison was immoral for supporting revolution against the
British monarchy; Martin Luther was immoral for protesting against the
church; etc. Preposterous.
JOHNNY
The patterns are moral, each one of them, and they shouldn't be broken.
RICK
Which patterns are moral and shouldn't be broken? Apartheid? Slavery?
Monarchy? The 'flat-Earth' theory? The Spanish Inquisition? McCarthyism?
The geocentric model of the universe? The Earth as a lifeless ball of
molten rock?
JOHNNY
Indeed, I think Pirsig is on the wrong track when he says higher level
patterns are fighting lower level patterns and keeping them in check them.
I believe they nurture them and depend on them.
RICK
Actually Johnny, Pirsig says both (see LILA ch9 p139). But all this is
really neither here nor there on the issue of the "burden of proof".
So far, in our 2 brief exchanges, you've asserted that static patterns
precede the Dynamic events that generate them, that static patterns should
be given the benefit of the doubt over Dynamic change, and that higher
levels exist to serve lower levels; all of which is in direct contradiction
to the MoQ as developed and described by Pirsig. If you're seriously trying
to understand what Pirsig wrote, I strongly recommend you read LILA again
and this time pay more attention to what it actually says.
If you do understand Pirsig's MoQ but have chosen to disagree with it
and borrow the vocabulary for your own "moq", then let me suggest that your
own "moq" is a logical absurdity. You've placed the wake in front of the
boat, declared that the preservative is more valuable than the preserved and
in doing so, you've created an evolutionary metaphysics in which evolution
is presumptively, if not totally, immoral.
I prefer Pirsig's vision.
take care,
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Sat Mar 22 2003 - 01:20:05 GMT