SQUAD: It seems our discussion has focused on war and competition. It's
a good way to look at POWER in the real world. A few thoughts...
It seems too wishy washy to simply claim that competition and
co-operation are both valuable ways to operate. But its clear that
nature offers many examples of both ways working well. Bees and Rams.
Very often there is a complex mixture of both approches going on at the
same time. Both players agree to the rules, but only one can win each
game. I don't think we can declare one to be static and the other to be
dynamic. Competition could be either. Co-operation could be either.
There is nothing inherently static or Dynamic about either of them. BUT
it seems clear enough that, in nature, both are successful strategies
for preserving static patterns. DQ is at work changing and evolving
those static patterns, but that doesn't necessarily involve any
competition or co-operation.
"Survival of the fittest" was an assumption held by many Victorian
gentlemen, even before Darwin's theory of evolution was devised. A
theory of Social Darwinism actually preceeded Darwin himself.
Personally, I think its a cynical, evil and dangerous idea. Doesn't
Pirsig's philosophy re-cast this sick notion as "Survival of the highest
quality" or "Survival of the most moral"? I think so.
There are moral codes in the MOQ that can tell us which side should
prevail in any given conflict, essentially the highest level, highest
quality or most Dynamic should win. I'm not sure the MOQ's recognition
of the necessity of conflict is the same as approving of war. As Mao
said to Nixon, "War is a symptom of our disease". War is a failure of
diplomacy. War is regression to a lower form of conflict resolution. Its
an ugly reality just like greed, jealousy or ignorance. Certainly, some
things ought to be avoided. War is one of them.
War is DQ? Bombs are DQ? We really should discuss the static/Dynamic
split in the near future. I get the impression that Pirsig's "Dynamic"
is being equated with nearly anything that is highly energetic,
vigorous, or loud. I don't think war or the powerful machines used in
war are "Dynamic" as Pirsig uses the word. Battles and bombs are dynamic
only in the common sense of the word. Any near death experience can be
truly "Dynamic" for a person. War is just one kind of trauma that might
trigger some kind of mystical experience. A car crash, another of the
many things that ought to be avoided, might work just as well.
War is the ultimate competition and, paradoxically, it is the ultimate
in co-operative undertakings. There is nothing so unified as a nation at
war. They say Israel would fall apart from internal conflicts if it
weren't surrounded by enemies. War summons the marshal spirit. But
societies can rally around other kinds of efforts besides war. The
marshal spirit can be used to energize and organize any collective
activity. The United States spends more money on military marching bands
than it does on the entire Departments of the Arts and Humanities
combined.
Wouldn't it be great if the nations of the world demonstrated their
POWER in an art race instead of an arms race? Shouldn't there be an
Olympics of the intellect? Wouldn't it have been nice if the COLD WAR
was about a clean water gap instead of a missle gap? I don't know if any
of this would be less competetive or more Dyanmic. It just seems
smarter.
David B.
MOQ Online - http://www.moq.org
