From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:31:43 BST
Scott,
Platt:
> > The little "self" is free to follow DQ or not. We have a choice.
Scott:
> Then it is both static and dynamic, which I have no problem with, but
> it seems to me that calling the little self a set of SQ does. If DQ
>is
> undefinable, it is not at all clear what following it can mean.
>
> In the free-will vs determisnism dsicussion (ch. 12) Pirsig writes:
>
> "In the Metaphysics of Quality this dilemma doesn't come up. To the
> extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of quality
> it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
> Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
>
> My question is who or what is this "one"? It is apparently something
> that can be controlled by SQ or can follow DQ. That is, it seems to be
> in the middle, neither one nor the other.
In ch.11 Pirsig describes the evolutionary process from the MOQ
perspective and writes:
"The patterns of life are constantly evolving to something 'better'
than that which those laws (static mechanistic patterns) have to
offer." (Parens added.)
So I think the answer to "Who or what is this one?" may be "patterns of
life," e.g., you, me and every living person.
>Now I recognize that this
> critical reading of mine is to some extent jumping on the necessity to
> put into words something that is, at bottom, inexplicable. But it seems
> to me more reasonable to say that what we have in this "one" is a
> recapitulation of the MOQ basis: Quality as DQ/SQ, and not a set of SQ.
You may be right in that our "capability of response to DQ" is not so
much something tacked on to our static patterns but woven into our
overall pattern of life. The following passage from ch. 11 appears to
suggest as much:
"Now when we come, to the chemistry professor, and see him studying his
empirically gathered data, trying to figure out what it means, this
person makes more sense. He's not just some impartial visitor from
outer space looking in on all this with no purpose other than to
observe. Neither is he some static, molecular, objective, biological
machine, doing all this for absolutely no purpose whatsoever. We see
that he's conducting his experiments for exactly the same purpose as
the subatomic forces had when they first began to create him billions
of years ago. He's looking for information that will expand the static
patterns of evolution itself and give both greater versatility and
greater stability against hostile static forces of nature. He may have
personal motives such as "pure fun," that is, the Dynamic Quality of
his work. But when he applies for funds he will normally and properly
tie his request to some branch of humanity's overall evolutionary
purpose."
It doesn't surprise me that the force of life or DQ would, in building
static patterns, inject a little bit of itself, i.e., it's desire for
something better, into those patterns. That would answer your question
of "How can something static respond to DQ?"
Suffice it to think of our capability to respond to DQ as a static
pattern. Then the little self could still be a "set of SQ."
Platt
"All the miseries of mankind come from one thing, not knowing how to
remain alone." -- Pascal
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 Sep 15 2003 - 13:30:15 BST