Dear Kevin,
I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post for yesterday. I've also been
rethinking some of my earlier criticisms of the cooperation vs. competition
argument. I've been consistently holding that competition is more the
dynamic concept and cooperation more the static. That is, within a
competitive environment, things (people, animals) must, essentially, 'fight
or die'. The obvious reasoning to this is Darwinian - that through this
push and shove (be it at a biological level or social... or even
intellectual) only the "strong" (good) survive and thus promulgate a species
of good......
But (as you've illuminated) this isn't the only way to approach the issue.
If Pirsig's basic arguments hold: 1) that reality can be divided into
divisions, 2) there is a hierarchial (spelling) relationship with the
divisions, 2a) that is - the existence of the divisions AND the inherent
relationship between them suggests a complete, cohesive structure (or
reality), 2b) each division is wholly dependent, though not dominated by,
the one directly below it, and 3) in direct correspondence with the
hierarchies is [a] morality (i.e. the upward progression through the levels
is a moral one). ^ (then) 'Cooperation among the parts that compose each
level/division' as a fundamental necessity HAS to be an inescapable
corollary. (Pirsig touches on this a lot in LILA. At the inorganic level,
this can be described as the "preference" certain atoms have for one another
in the development of molecules; biologically - the interdependence of the
organ and blood systems in any animal; socially - the cooperative
relationships people develop for a common purpose, i.e.- marriage and
family, social observance of laws; at the intellectual level, "Academia" -
though probably highly competitive -, is a cooperative assembly of people
who both honor the intellectual traditions of the past and have a mutual aim
of expanding them....)
If it can be shown that there ACTUALLY IS a moral relationship between the
different levels (this is merely a two-fold premise made by Pirsig) then the
above examples of cooperative situations makes a strong case for the
assertion that "cooperation is dynamic".
But if this is the case, then where DOES competition fit? Are the terms
mutually exclusive?
Also, I've heard (seen) you use the word "synergy" a few times. I assume
this is the conjunction of "synthesis" and "energy". If man, being the
fundamental "part" that composes the social level (see Leibniz's Monadology)
(I think this is what Pirsig is saying...) and there are levels that extend
beyond the social one and it is good/moral to make "the journey" through the
levels, Then man (being the thinking agent he is) MUST behave cooperatively
and support the social pattern. Is this similar to what you mean by
synergy?...
Jason
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
