From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Apr 30 2003 - 18:07:26 BST
Hey Paul and all,
I know I've been scarce around these parts lately so my apologies to anyone
I left hanging (to Sam... if you're out there, I haven't abandoned our
'philosophy and theology' discussion... I've been crafting a response in
extreme slow motion :). Anyway, I just wanted to throw my two cents in on
this thread.
Paul, I think your interpretation problem can be solved by putting some
context around those quotes...
PAUL WROTE:
> I can't make the following statements stack up:
>
> Lila is a cohesion of changing static patterns. There
> isn't any more to her than that. Ch 11
>
> Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these
> patterns are evolving toward a Dynamic Quality. Ch 11
>
> Static patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust
> to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that.
> Ch 13
RICK
The last quote you mentioned comes from chapter 13, p.185 in my edition. It
comes from Pirsig's discussion of society's rights to kill an individual.
Pirsig essentially concludes that society is only justified in killing
individuals whose very existence is a threat to the continued existence of
the society itself because every human being is a source of ideas, and those
ideas are at a higher level of evolution than a society. This is where he
writes:
PIRSIG (LILA ch13 p185)
And beyond that there is more compelling reason: societies and thoughts and
principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. THESE
PATTERNS can't themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality (emphasis
added). Only a living being can do that.
RICK
Here we can see that Pirsig was not saying "Static patterns can't perceive
or adjust to DQ". Rather, he was saying that social and intellectual
patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to DQ (which is why he
thinks society should preserve as many living beings as possible). Why is
this? Because after the rise of the biological level, *life* became the
primary vehicle for DQ.
In chapter 11, Pirsig states, "The chemistry of life is the chemistry of
carbon. What distinguishes all the species of plants and animals is, in the
final analysis, differences in the way carbon atoms choose to bond."
Carrying this up to the next level, I think Pirsig might say something like:
"The chemistry of society is the chemistry of living beings. What
distinguishes all the species of societies and groups is, in the final
analysis, differences in the way living beings choose to bond." The way
Dynamic adjustment at the biological level ultimately comes down to the
choices of carbon, Dynamic adjustment at the social level (and the
intellectual level it supports) ultimately come down to the choices of
living beings.
So to put your 3 quotes together, we can see... Lila is a living being
composed entirely of static patterns of value evolving towards DQ, which she
perceives and adjusts to at 4 levels by virtue of the fact that she is a
living being (ultimately made from Carbon).
hope that helps
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 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 18:07:52 BST