Hi Craig (Marsha quoted) --
[Ham, previously]:
Pirsig...has put man in a cosmic "vat" by denying him
the autonomy of free choice and self-determination.
[Craig]:
What source do you have for this view of Pirsig? It doesn't sound
true to the MoQ.
Ask Marsha where she got this definition of human being:
Sentient beings are not things, not selves even, but clusters of
interrelated, ever-changing, inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual
static patterns of value interacting within a field of Dynamic Quality.
Even if this is not a direct Pirsig quote, it represents the MoQist view of
what man is -- not an entity, not a self, not even a proprietary subject,
but patterns of value in a field of quality. There is no "free agency" in
such a construct because the "field" itself is the operand of the patterns.
The static patterns, in other words, are programmed by DQ.
Here are some of Pirsig's own statements alluding to mankind:
"Objects are inorganic and biological values; subjects are social and
intellectual values."
"All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic
Quality."
"Natural selection is Dynamic Quality at work."
"Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate
out of society, which originates out of biology which originates out of
inorganic nature. And . what a mind thinks is as dominated by social
patterns as social patterns are dominated by biological patterns and
biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns. There is no direct
scientific connection between mind and matter."
"To the extent that one's behavior is controlled by static patterns of
quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
Quality, which is undefinable, one's behavior is free."
I've been unable to find any references to individuality, individualism,
individual freedom, self-determination, proprietary awareness, or personal
autonomy. Instead, in all these quotes citing "subjects", "mind", "life",
and "free", there is the presumption of a collective consciousness being
dominated or controlled by DQ.
Unless you can provide a statement by the author supporting the individual
as the conscious locus of existential reality or the agent of value in the
world, I don't see how you can refute my "self in a vat" characterization of
his philosophy.
Thanks, Craig,
Ham
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/
