From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Jun 20 2004 - 14:57:08 BST
Dear Wim,
I wrote 17 Jun 2004 10:58:18 -0400:
> 'My distinction [between power of the collective and 'freedom f the
> individual] is based on Pirsig's statement that only a living being (an
> individual) can respond to DQ, and that societies only change one person at
> a time with someone (an individual) always first.'
>
> Pirsig's statement refers to the relation between DQ and sq. Not between
> particular levels. Feel free to improve on Pirsig's ideas, but I don't
> think you can quote him in support here.
On "only a living being can respond . . .," Pirsig wrote: (emphasis added)
And beyond that is an even more compelling reason; societies and thoughts
and principles themselves are no more than sets of static patterns. These
patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. ONLY A
LIVING BEING CAN DO THAT. The strongest moral argument against capital
punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic capability—its
capability for change and evolution. It's not the "nice" guys who bring
about real social change. "Nice" guys look nice because they're
conforming. It's the "bad" guys, who only look nice a hundred years later,
that are the real Dynamic force in social evolution. That was the real
moral lesson of the brujo in Zuni. If those priests had killed him they
would have done great harm to their society's ability to grow and change.
(Lila, 13)
On "societies changing one person at a time," Pirsig wrote:
The brujo's values were in conflict with the tribe at least partly because he had
learned to value some of the ways of the new neighbors and they had not.
He was a precursor of deep cultural change. A TRIBE CAN ONLY CHANGE
ITS VALUES PERSON BY PERSON AND SOMEONE HAS TO BE FIRST.
Whoever is first obviously is going to be in conflict with everybody else.
He didn't have to change his ways to conform to the culture only because
the culture was changing its ways to conform to him. And that is what made
him seem like such a leader. (Lila, 9)
> If you can, that would imply an
> internal contradiction in Pirsig's ideas, as -according to you- Pirsig's
> distinction is between 'the force of tradition vs creative thought'. Living
> beings don't necessarily respond to DQ individually.
Pirsig says they do. I agree with him..
> Collective patterns of
> thought and of behaviour can change without any particular individual being
> aware of it at the time (e.g. fashion).
Some individual somewhere always starts a new fashion trend.
> Collective behaviour doesn't
> necessarily change one person at a time or start with one person first.
> People can decide to do something together and they can also unconsciously
> co-ordinate their behaviour. E.g. it can have been a group invention to
> chase rhino's by surrounding one and successively drawing its attention
> until it tires.
Disagree. There's no such thing as group-think. There's only group-
agreement or disagreement. One person says, "Let's . . ." and others chime
in afterwards.
Best regards,
Platt
> With friendly greetings,
>
> Wim
>
>
>
> 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 -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
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 -
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 : Sun Jun 20 2004 - 14:58:21 BST