RE: MD What is a living being?

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 03 2003 - 17:24:22 BST

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Undeniable Facts"

    Paul, Rick and all living beings:

    RICK said:
    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: "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." (Lila chapter 13)

    dmb says:
    I agree with Rick and am again grateful for his efforts. Putting the quote
    into context was going to be my next move too, but Rick beat me to it and
    thereby saved me some work. I'd quibble a bit, however. I don't think it is
    correct to say that "every human being is a source of ideas". It might be
    true that every normal healthy person is POTENTIALLY a source of ideas, and
    that persons are the ONLY source of ideas, but I think its pretty clear that
    there are many people in the world who have not yet developed to the
    intellectual stage. In fact, I think Pirsig demonstates this notion in his
    three main characters. Lila is biologically oriented, is pretty far down the
    scale socially and intellectually "she's nowhere". Richard Rigel is socially
    oriented, thus we see him strike various moral postures. Finally, there is
    the author, the captian, who is obviously an intellecutally oriented person.
    Each of them will have a different sense of what has quality because they
    represent various levels of development. For someone like Lila, intellectual
    concepts don't really register. They are beyond her. I picture her as
    somebody like Anna Nicole Smith. (Personally, I think she's disgusting and
    my heart goes out to her as it would to a cancer patient. She's a sick
    person.)

    RICK said:
    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.

    dmb says:
    I'd quibble here too, and for the same basic reason. I'd say all static
    patterns can respond to DQ, BUT ONLY ON THEIR OWN LEVEL. Atoms and molecules
    can respond at the inorganic level, but biology, society and intellect is
    beyond an atom's abilities. The higher levels just don't register. The laws
    of physics seem totally static, and they certainly are more static than the
    higher levels, but we can be fairly confident that the "physical" universe
    evolved to its present state and, on a quantum level, we can see that even
    at this first level there is a certain amount of choice. Likewise,
    biological evolution is still going on even as we speak (The SARS virus, for
    example). This second level is more dynamic than the first, and likewise we
    can see that social evolution move at much faster rate than biological
    changes. And the reason, clearly, that social and intellectual changes can
    only occur through living humans, is that such values are beyond all rocks
    and animals and everything, except for people. Only people can perceive the
    3rd and 4th levels of static quality. Dirt doesn't know or care about sex.
    Animals don't know or care about righteousness. Socially dominated people
    like fundamentalists and fascists, to take an extreme example, not only
    don't care about or understand intellectual level values, they are often
    hostile to such values. (Pirsig describes Hitler's main motivation as an
    extreme hatred of intellectual people and things.)

    Make sense? I hope so.

    DMB

    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 May 03 2003 - 17:25:33 BST