From: Leland Jory (ljory@mts.net)
Date: Tue Mar 16 2004 - 23:18:17 GMT
Platt Holden wrote:
>DQ could be considered by some to be an article of faith, but they would
>be wrong. Pirsig makes it clear that we possess, along with other physical
>senses, and sense of DQ. In his SODV paper, Pirsig spells it out:
>
>"Metaphysics of Quality follows the empirical tradition here in saying
>that the senses are the starting point of reality, but -- all importantly -
>- it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena. To ignore them is to
>misread the world. It says this sense of value, of liking or disliking, is
>a primary sense that is a kind of gatekeeper for everything else an infant
>learns. At birth this sense of value is extremely Dynamic but as the
>infant grows up this sense of value becomes more and more influenced by
>accumulated static patterns."
>
Good point. I agree that DQ should not be considered an article of
faith, and if you were able to ask an infant in a meaningful way if they
saw DQ I'm sure they would reply in the affirmative. However, once
you've grown up and become saddled with your personal set of
"accumulated static patterns", it becomes more difficult to say "I see
Dynamic Quality" and not have people look at you funny. I have incessant
arguments with my mother over Pirsigian philosophy. Her immune system
simply will not accept the concept that (for instance) substance can be
said to be made of static patterns of inorganic value. It simply goes in
one ear and out the other. Unfortunately, now that she has heard me say
that, whenever the subject of the MOQ comes up, she has the same
reaction John Sullivan had when motorcycle maintenance was brought up.
She really tries to understand, but her eyes invariably glaze over part
way in and the subject gets changed.
>>Static social patterns of some kind are necessary, or the whole social
>>level will degenerate (at least to the last statically latched level). You
>>couldn't really have an intellectual level if the social level didn't
>>exist, since we'd all be focussed on the biological stuff (eating,
>>sleeping, fucking). The social level is the foundation on which the
>>intellectual level rests.
>>
>>
>
>No argument there. But, there are many social patterns besides static
>religious ones. The most important in the U.S. is our Constitution which
>guarantees individual rights to free speech, trial by jury, etc. This is
>the key social pattern that supports the intellectual level. Of course,
>it's under attack by socialists who think the collective should always
>take precedence over individual rights. The spread of laws against so-
>called "hate speech" is a case in point.
>
>
The thing is, there is no more inherent value in secular q-social
patterns than there is in religious q-social patterns. Your much-vaunted
constitution also guarantees the "Right to Bear Arms" which, arguably,
is a major player in the number of gun deaths in the US. No system is
absolutely perfect, religious OR secular.
I wonder, how do you feel about "hate speech"? Do you condone it? Do you
value the incitement of violence against certain groups? If not, then
you can probably see at least a little value in laws prohibiting it.
Consider, you'll never get the hate groups to voluntarily stop writing
the crap that they do, so the only recourse is through the existing
q-social system (i.e. the legal system) to curb it. Just as they have a
right to free speech, so have the members of the groups being attacked
the right to not have to hear it.
>>>I reject social moral codes based on divine revelation such as the 10
>>>commandments because they have no intellectual base.
>>>
>>>
>>I might disagree with you on some of the commandments. Items such as
>>"thou shalt not kill" are extremely valid. However, I'd say that any
>>validity the commandments have is on a social level, not an
>>intellectual one.
>>
>>
>
>That's my point. Social moral codes ought to be based on intellect, not on
>social traditions. Pirsig has given us an intellectual basis for
>determining right and wrong.
>
Try thinking of religion as a method of delivery. It's a moral pill as
opposed to a moral injection. Sure, the underlying concepts (which, IMO,
bear the bulk of the q-social value) have become crufted over with
ritual and politics. That is why, although I am not anti-christian, I
condone liberal church reformation. It's not religion I have a problem
with, but dogma.
>Absolutely. You must be familiar with David Gelernter's book 'Machine
>Beauty.' He argues, and I agree, that both computer hardware and software
>could use a strong infusion of "art."
>
>
Actually, I've never read it (but plan to, now). As for computer
hardware and software needing an infusion of art, as a Mac user I
already have Quality in my computer. ;^{)>
--
Leland Jory :^{)>
Cafeteria Spiritualist and Philosopher
"It is a puzzling thing. The truth knocks on the door and you say, 'Go
away, I'm looking for the truth.' and so it goes away. Puzzling." -
Robert Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
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 16 2004 - 23:22:03 GMT