John said: But all things considered, I don't judge [returning to the last static latch] as the right place to go... I say we need something new.
Arlo replied: .., I think its very valuable to consider that, according to Pirsig, the "Hippie Revolution" WAS the new, moral direction we should have gone. Yes, yes... the Hippies got bogged down in confusing Dynamic with biological quality. But for where to go, or where we should have gone, it's a worthwhile dialogue to go back to the beginnings of the so-called Hippie Revolution and see where they should have gone. dmb says: Exactly. It wouldn't be changing the subject to point out that Pirsig's diagnosis of the hippie's failure applies to political economics as well. The idea of dynamic quality is something that neither the capitalist nor the socialists ever figured either. As you may have noticed, I think it applies to the world of the fine arts as well. There are an endless number of elements of domains within the larger culture that could be served by this same critique. In each case, a good diagnosis is going to use the levels of static quality to locate the subject of our inquiry within the evolutionary-moral hierarchy AND a good diagnosis is going to employ the static/dynamic distinction as well. This is exactly what Pirsig is doing in the quotes so well supplied by Arlo. Arlo said: We likely can't recreate a failed revolution, the symbolism is too entrenched, too cliche, too "old" to serve as the new direction now. ... But it is, I am convinced, a high quality endeavor to go back to the formations of the Hippie's moral revolution, see what it is they were trying to accomplish, what it was the early Hippies were saying, before the movement got derailed, and ask what about what they were saying made it "the next moral revolution". dmb says: In the next moral revolution, if it is to be successful, there will be spirituality where there once was hedonism because the confusion between Dynamic Quality and biological static quality will be gone. I think Pheadrus' goal of creating a new spiritual rationality was aimed at clearing up that confusion. I think the MOQ central terms and distinctions are aimed at clearing up that confusion. The hippie rebellion against Victorian social level morality wasn't just a rebellion against sexual repression, although that was certainly part of it. They were also rebelling against social level political attitudes. The Klan, the Bearchers and McCarthyites, the cold-warriors and bible thumpers, the bigots and misogynists. These are the types that like to draw attention to the sex, drugs and rock rather than the equal rights marches and anti-war protests. The hippies were among those most likely to oppose Imperialism abroad and censorship at home, to oppose conformity, exploitation, poverty, ignorance, and hate. That's the sort of thing that made it moral, socially speaking. Intellectually speaking, they more or less felt like John Sutherland did about technology and technological culture. And I suppose that same negative attitude also applies to industrial, institutional and commercial architecture, to our factory-like educational system and scientific materialism in general. I think the MOQ supplies the concepts and vocabulary to get at the source of the feelings they had about this things, to get at why they felt so stuffy and rigid and empty. Thanks Arlo. Nice choices on those quotes. _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that’s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 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/
