From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 06:12:04 GMT
Hello Johnny,
I think I'm starting to see the root of the problem here.
JOHNNY
....but if by "more Dynamic" you
> mean it involves more change, ie, change for change's sake, then I think
> that is an artifical imperative and the opposite of morality.
RICK
The most vexing part of your response was the assertion that somehow my
view is "the opposite of morality." I really had no idea what you could
mean. I was prepared to write off this thread in the name of futility, but
as I read on, I realized something....
JOHNNY
> It's not preposterous at all: those things were all immoral at the time,
in
> and of themselves. That's why those people all risked life or jail or
> electroshock therapy. I pointed out that what is moral is not necessarily
> what is best, it is simply what is expected. And I'm not saying, a la
Trent
> Lott, that we'd be better off if those things hadn't happened, to the
> contrary....
RICK
And finally, I saw what was going on. You're *not* saying that we'd be
better off if those things hadn't happened, but you *are* saying that those
things happening was immoral. Therefore, you must be saying that sometimes
we are better off when immoral things happen...And from the perspective of
static quality alone, it really must seem this way. It seems that you're
going along, following your moral pattern, and then one day, some Brujo
comes along and throws a monkey wrench into the works. He does immoral
things and breaks and all the moral patterns. Yet, somehow, when he's done,
there are new static patterns in place that seem more moral than (or just as
moral as) those patterns that existed before. From the perspective of
static quality alone it would seem that immoral activity caused evolution to
occur and resulted in betterness. That is, it seems that badness makes
betterness.
But the key to understanding what is happening is the identification of
Dynamic Good as a form of morality also. Static and Dynamic Goods are both
kinds of morality. You're only seeing the morality of static good, which is
why your point of view about Rosa Parks sounds just like this....
PIRSIG (LILA ch9 p131)
The tribal frame of values that condemned the brujo and led to his
punishment was one kind of good, for which Phaedrus had coined the term
"static good." Each culture has its own pattern of static good derived from
fixed laws and traditions and values that underlie them. This pattern of
static good is the essential structure of the culture itself and defines it.
In the static sense the brujo was very evil to oppose the appointed
authorities of his tribe....
RICK
This is what you were saying about Rosa Parks and the others I mentioned. In
the static sense, they were immoral to the established patterns. But static
quality is only half the picture....
PIRSIG (LILA ch9 p131)
But in addition there's a *Dynamic* good that is outside of any culture,
that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has to be
continually rediscovered as a culture evolves. Good and evil are not
*entirely* a matter of tribal custom. If they were, no tribal change would
be possible, since custom cannot change custom. There has to be another
source of good and evil outside the tribal customs that produces the tribal
change.
RICK
Under your view, static good is the only morality and Rosa Parks *was*
immoral from the perspective of static good. But from the perspective of
the Dynamic Morality, Rosa was rediscovering the good that is bigger than
any static pattern. Equating static good alone with the whole of morality
itself leads you to say things like...
JOHNNY
If you are starving, you
> might feel it was more expected to steal for food than to follow the
social
> pattern of not stealing. It would still be immoral to steal in general,
> unless most people started stealing.
RICK
This is EXACTLY the mistake Pirsig was warning against in the quote I
included above. You think that good and evil are entirely a matter of
tribal custom (i.e. if we all started to steal, it would become moral). As a
result, you have no way to explain how it is that good and evil change
(since custom can't change custom) or how things become better. So you are
left with either leaving the whole subject unexplained and just saying that
change happens when it happens; Like so....
JOHNNY
> Dynamic change will happen when it should happen, it doesn't
> need any urging or extra benefit.
RICK
Or you are left saying that the change in good and evil is really just
random change, and that our perception that the change was moral or immoral
(or for the better or worse) is really nothing more than the fulfillment of
some mysterious social expectation; Like so....
JOHNNY
> Evolution is amoral in my moq, the only reason I would agree that
evolution
> is making the world better is because saying that is morally expected of
us.
RICK
All the action in a Metaphysics of Quality comes from the interplay and
friction between two different kinds of morality. To enthrone static
quality alone as morality is to oversimplify the whole thing and deprive
yourself of some of Pirsig's greatest insights. If Dynamic Quality is not
recognized as a kind of morality then every moral conflict will appear
ridiculously obvious having been reduced to a choice between "morality" or
"Dynamic Quality". It would be like having a moral compass with the needle
painted on.
In fact, the whole issue of a "burden of proof" is only interesting if
the conflict is between two competing forms of morality (which kind of
morality is better at a given moment?). If only static quality is moral
than no argument would EVER be necessary, it would always just be "stay with
the flock, stay with the flock."
JOHNNY
> In summary, respect morality, don't consider it a necessary evil that
needs
> changing. We don't need to be freed from morality, we need morality in
> order to be free.
RICK
In sum, you've mistaken "static morality" as the only kind of morality.
DQ is a kind of morality too. Corrected for your misunderstanding, your
statement amounts to this: "We don't need to be freed from [static quality],
we need [static quality] in order to be free." Can you see why that's wrong
now? Static quality has its values, but freedom is not one of them. Moral
freedom is Dynamic Quality.
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 : Tue Mar 25 2003 - 06:09:42 GMT