From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat May 29 2004 - 15:08:04 BST
Hi Wim and MarkM,
I'm not sure of the protocol here. If a message is not addressed to
me, is it proper for me to toss in my 2 cents? If not, Wim, or
somebody, please let me know.
Mark 29-5-04: Hi Mark H, i feel it is respectful for respondents to
acknowledge who they are dealing with. At the same time, it should be understood that
all comments are welcome. Most welcome!
wim said to MarkM:
I don't agree that DQ is more moral than sq.
msh butts in::
This turns the entire MOQ on its head, IMO. The way I read it, any
static value latch-up due to the the influence of DQ is a moral step
upward. Static values attempting to "freeze" DQ result in degeneracy
from DQ. If DQ itself can cause degeneracy then you are describing
an entirely different metaphysics for which I can find no evidence in
Pirsig's writing.
Mark 29-5-04: DQ and SQ are always aspects of any process, even those which
may appear the most static? A fine balance between the two appears to promise
the best states? In this respect, both DQ and SQ are absolutely necessary. So,
i can find myself agreeing with Wim.
But evolution is motivated by DQ, and DQ is the goal of evolution. Therefore,
in a sense, DQ will have it's way producing either chaotic mess or a
latching? So, i can find myself agreeing with you Mark.
I suppose it depends on whether one adopts a static or Dynamic point of view?
I feel your point of view Mark is more Dynamic than Wim's.
wim offered:
Pirsig wrote in his introduction to Lila's Child:
'After reading through these and many other comments, I've concluded
that the biggest improvement I could make in the MOQ would be to
block the notion that the MOQ claims to be a quick fix for every
moral problem in the universe. I have never seen it that way. The
image in my mind as I wrote it was of a large football field that
gave meaning to the game by telling you who was on the 20-yard line
but did not decide which team would win."
msh says:
Don't know about others, but I certainly don't expect the MOQ to be a
quick fix for all of society's moral problems. I view it as a great
foundation for further development, hopefully resulting in a system
of thought that will help us advance toward a more moral society.
Pirsig continued, ala Wim:
"That was the point of the two opposing arguments over the death
penalty described in Lila. That was the point of the equilibrium
between static and Dynamic Quality. Both are moral arguments. Both
can claim the MOQ for support.'
msh says:
I believe Pirsig argued in LILA that MAYBE capital punishment is
justified if the person to be killed can be shown to be a real threat
to the existence of the society, such as a spy or traitor or
something. (I think even this is arguable, since that spy or traitor
might very well be the Brujo, but I'll let it slide.) But, on the
the SAME PAGE, the overwhelming argument against CP is that when you
kill a person you are killing a source of ideas (almost a direct
quote, I believe).
I have no idea why Pirsig, in his intro to LC (if this quote is
accurate and in context) appears to be backing away from his original
position. Being politic, maybe? Anyway, both arguments are moral,
yes, but one is clearly superior to the other, as will be evident to
anyone who re-reads the relevant passages.
wim says to MarkM:
Next to your suggestion I would suggest as equally valid:
1. Dynamic Quality may create new patterns of value except where
this -measured by standards of Static Quality- would imply
degeneration (i.e. substituting better patterns of value with worse
ones).
msh says:
See above. A metaphysics where DQ may or may not do something based
on SV conditions, where DQ would cause degeneration, is a completely
different metaphysics. Wimaphysics?
Mark 29-5-04: This is where everyone runs up against the sinner or saint
problem. From a static perspective a good move may appear degenerative, but from a
Dynamic perspective the same move may be a good thing? Very tricky indeed.
Having said this, you Mark H note that evolution will try everything it can
to forge ahead. This may result in chaos, and a falling back to a previous
stage of evolution - a failed latch. I think Wim tries to accommodate this in his
formulation.
2. Dynamic Quality must respect existing standards of Static
Quality.
msh says:
This is Wimaphysics. And, by the way, a metaphysics that will
quickly lead to stagnation.
3. Dynamic Quality must claim room for change of and relative
freedom from static patterns of value, but only there where this
change doesn't endanger the highest quality static patterns of value
existing.
msh says:
Wimaphysics.
Best to all,
Mark Steven Heyman
Mark 29-5-04: All the best, Mark M.
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 29 2004 - 15:16:36 BST