Ron writes:
Ian, Jorge,
I'm by no means an absolutist on this issue, I see
Quality and energy
as
being very similar, Jorge disagrees but hey, I'm here
to alter my
perceptions. Chauvinism may be the appropriate term
for it. But every
time
I hear Quality or energy described, the description
sounds very
similar.
Trying to get a grasp on static patterns of value in
physical terms
(is what Pirsig has led me to believe it is) is rather
difficult
without
This metaphor. Just what exactly are static patterns
of value in the
physical universe then? What analogy is best suited
for this concept
If any?
-Ron
Jorge: Quite glad to hear, Ron, that you are not an
absolutist in this question of Quality and Energy
being very similar. I am afraid I am though, in more
than a way. I very much resent the tendency in our
culture to try to represent everything in the world in
terms of 'physical terms". I consider it a sort of
negative trait of our "intellectualism".
This tendency seems to arise from two different
sectors. One is from some scientists (a minority I'd
say) that still cling to the idea, that, given time,
Science can explain everything that conforms our
world, even up to consciousness itself. The other is
from non-scientists that think that any notion can
acquire more validity by expressing it using the
jargon of science (but ignoring the scientific
method).
Reading Z&AMM I get the impression that Pirsig had
this negative trend of western culture very much in
mind and, perhaps, that explains his attacks to the
S/O distinction. IMHO he overstated his point; the
said distinction has a lot of 'value' in the sense
that has served Science admirably so far. It has a lot
of 'value' though only in a restricted part of our
efforts to understand the world and by that I mean the
branches of the physical sciences ( and not the
so-called social sciences). Taken outside those limits
the S/O distinction has proven to be, IMHO, more a
hindrance than an asset.
The problem with Quality in the eyes of many in our
culture is that it's too ambiguous, vague,
indefinable; the classical example of some thing that
can not be put in terms of black or white. For people
that believe that everything can be expressed in terms
of rigid categories, hermetic compartments and
opposed poles, a notion such as Quality is bound to
make them feel uncomfortable.
If only we could make Quality more 'tangible'--
they say-- we could come to terms with it; no better
way of making it more tangible, apprehensible than
finding it some analogy in physical terms. The best
candidate for this and other attempts is Energy.
Energy, for a number of reasons, seems to be the best
candidate not only for quality but for quite a number
of other things; it has become a good substitute for
the soul, for empathy... the list is too long. After
all, if "thoughts are energy" (a most preposterous
notion made fashionable lately by a fellow called
Campbell) then, why not everything else we don't
understand?
I could go on ranting on this subject for pages
and pages. I'd better put an stop sign now.
___________________________________________________________
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
