From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 31 2003 - 02:34:21 BST
Steve, Rick and all:
PIRSIG
"Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
intellectual order over the social order - democracy, trial by jury, freedom
of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a fourth Dynamic morality
which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it a "code of Art" or
something like that, but art is usually thought of as such a frill that that
title undercuts its importance."
STEVE said:
As I understand what Pirsig is saying, some of our morality exists
to control biological patterns, which is the social-biological moral code.
Some morals exist to free the intellect from society which make up the
social-intellectual code. Dynamic morality is a moral code like these (not a
static level)....
RICK responded:
I agree. I believe the Pirsig quote is about the 4 moral 'codes' of MoQ...
biological>inorganic, sociological>biological, intellectual>sociological,
dynamic>static. It is not suggesting a fifth static level of "Art".
DMB says:
Right. The code of art is a code, not a level. I think it is the code behind
all the other codes. The code of art says that, all things being equal, the
more Dynamic way is better. That's WHY social values trump biology, because
they're more evolved, and as the rates of biological and social evolution so
clearly demonstrate, societies can evolve much faster than organims. The
code of art is based on the underlying principle that evolution is good. I
find this this assertion very easy to accept. In fact, I love it. Now I'll
quote from the same section where Pirsig lays out the codes, at the end of
chapter 13. In fact, its from the very next paragraphs...
"Morality is not a simple set of rules. It's a very complex struggle of
conflicting patterns of values. This conflict is the residue of evolution.
As new patterns evolve they come into conflict with old ones. Each stage of
evolution creates in its wake a wash of problems. It's out of this struggle
between conflicting static patterns that the concepts of good and evil
arise."
"Phaedrus thought that most other quarrels in values can be traced to
evolutionary causes and that this tracing can sometimes provide both a
rational basis for classification of the quarrels and a rational solution.
The structuring of morality into evolutionary levels suddenly gives shape to
all kinds of blurred and confused moral ideas that are floating around in
our present cultural heritage. ... Like the stuff Rigel was throwing at him
this morning, the old Victorian morality. That was entirely within that one
code - the social code. Phadreus thought that code was good enough as far as
it went, but it really didn't go anywhere. It didn't know its origins and it
didn't know its own destinations, and not knowing them it had to be exactly
what it was; hopelessly static, hopelessly stupid, a form of evil in itself.
...Everybody thinks those Victorian moral codes are stupid and evil, or
old-fashioned at least, except maybe a few religious fundamentalists and
ultra-right-wingers and ignorant uneducated people like that. That's why
Rigel's sermon seemed so peculiar. ... Didn't he know all that stuff went
out years ago?"
DMB says:
This kind of talk has to be balanced out with Pirsig's assertions about the
necessity of moral codes. This attack on Rigel-istic morality only shows the
code of art at work again. Its not social patterns that are the enemy, its
unknowing obedience to them that's bugging the author. When these static
things become stale rather than stable, stuffy rather than cozy, static
patterns become a prison. This is considered evil in the MOQ because it is a
dis-service to the evolutionary process. (Plus, it's a shitty way to live.)
RICK said:
It's actually sort of funny, he calls the Dynamic morality a "code
of art" but in the same breath tells us that it isn't a code and that
describing it as art arguably undercuts its importance.
DMB says:
I think he was just afraid that somebody would construe the "code of art" as
meaning that fine art is holy, which it is, but that's not what the code is
about. He might have called it the "code of evolution", but somebody would
think it that implies some kind of social Darwinism. Its bigger than both of
those things. Nor is it always as mysterious as some have elsewhere
suggested. We don't always have to wait a hundred years to make the call. As
Pirsig closes that chapter, we can see that a huge evolutionary conflict
marks our time. Continuing to quote from that same section where we find the
codes...
"Where has he (Rigel) been during this whole century? That's what this whole
century's been about, this struggle between intellectual and social
patterns. That's the theme song of the 20th century. Is society going to
dominate intellect or is intellect going to dominate society? And if society
wins, what's going to be left of intellect? And if intellect wins what's
going to be left of society? That was the thing that this evolutionary
morality brought out clearer than anything else. Intellect is not an
extension of society any more than society is an extension of biology.
Intellect is going its own way, and in doing so is at war with society,
seeking to subjugate society, to put society under lock and key. An
evolutionary morality says it is moral for intellect to do so, but it also
contains a warning: Just as a society that weakens its people's physical
health endangers its own stability, so does an intellectual pattern that
weakens and destroys the health of its social base also endanger its own
stability."
DMB says:
Here we see the balancing act better. Its moral for the more evolved values
to dominate the lower ones, but not to the extent that they put themselves
at risk. That wouldn't serve the evolutionary process any better than the
stupid static stuff. I think here he's saying that huge moral issues are
involved in the heart of the 20th century's struggles. And as grandiose as
it sounds, it seems he's saying the fate of our civilization hangs in the
balance and that his evolutionary morality helps to sort out the mess. Even
really great paintings seem like a "frill" compared to all that.
Thanks.
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 : Mon Mar 31 2003 - 02:36:15 BST