Hi Bruce --
I appreciate you critique and perspective. It is my objective
to provide my concepts and perspective on Pirsig's writings
and to learn from you all that share in a similar journey.
It not my goal to simply restate what Pirsig has written, but
to add twists that may not have been considered. I think that
most folks that write are very auditory, but applying art and
charts often open up a different understanding to a concept.
I greatly appreciate your post as it helps me to stretch my
mind and understanding.
I commend you for your candor, and have no wish to discourage these
objectives which are shared by all the MD participants. You should know up
front that I have been critical of the Quality hierarchy as a "metaphysical"
thesis, although favorably disposed toward the MoQ's emphasis on Value as
the ground of existence. Having developed a philosophy of my own, I don't
claim to speak for Mr. Pirsig and, in fact, have epistemological problems
with his rejection of the subjective self. My caveat to you comes from
personal experience here, and it concerns interpretations of Quality that
stray too far from the diagram charted in Pirsig's SODV presentation paper
of 1995. (If you haven't yet read this, it's accessible at
www.quantonics.com/)
You stated, "Bruce's brainstorm is to make "static" apply to
three Quality "states" which he defines as stasis, declination,
and improvement. His idea contradicts the MoQ in several
significant respects." My attempt here is not make "Static"
apply to these three states, but to say that beside "Static Patterns",
things either improve or decline. IMO, there is only one true static
pattern and that is total disorder or a return to "MU". "Static
Patterns of Quality" have to consume in order to survive.
In addition, something that is seen as a static pattern such as
the biological level has to "improve" in order to survive as it
must gain new defences. The point here is really even static
patterns are not static, they are either improving or declining.
Any movement towards improvement or decline is not "static" but "dynamic",
and is therefore regarded by the Pirsigians as a function of DQ. (I have no
stake in this contest, as I don't view Quality [or Value] as either an
active agent or the equivalent of evolution.)
The next point here, that seems to be in flux within this community,
is to determine if Dynamic "Quality" only moves items in the
direction of improvement or is also responsible for declination as well.
I have struggled with this and try to make it both, but just can't quite
make it fit. I think the problem is that Pirsig waffles on this in Lila
and in other writings. In chapter 11 he clearly states that it is only
the movement to improvement and that Dynamic Quality is not
structure, but is not chaotic. He goes on to say that Dynamic Quality
goes against the laws of nature. Thus, it appears to me that the laws
of nature prove that there is a declination to disorder that is outside
of Dynamic Quality. That said, is there Dynamic Quality and
Dynamic Disorder as well? Some would have me believe that
Dynamic Quality is nothing more than a big hammer that strikes
shit every now and then to see what happens. Every time that it
strikes things they automatically get better organized. Ugh, yeah
that is what made all of this out of nothing. The thing is there is a
force that drives things to improvement and I see that as Dynamic Quality.
Sometimes things are destoyed so that something better can be created,
but I would think that Dynamic Quality also uses the destructive qualities
of nature to deconstruct so that construction for "betterness" can occur.
As you stated, "stasis" and "movement" are a inherent to Quality itself...
I would say, as I did above, even "stasis" is moving. The only
"true stasis" is absolute disorder and that could only occur if items
are left alone without Dynamic Quality.
I have the same problem with the MoQ concept of a "moral universe." If the
universe (which is Pirsig's Quality=Reality) is inherently moral, why did
Haiti suffer a natural disaster three weeks ago, and why do viruses and
genetic defects cause disease and abnormailities in human beings? Clearly,
such anomalies don't serve the cause of "betterness" in nature or its life
forms.
My own position on this issue is that Morality is an invention of man. We
live in an amoral universe so that we can experience the extremes of
goodness and evil. We (as sensible subjects) are free to pursue the values
we choose to live by. You see, I believe the individual is the "agent of
value" in this pluralistic world, that the "quality" of experiential
existence represents the value-sensibility of man. (Such an ontology is of
course is impossible for a philosopher who dismisses subjective awareness
but posits Quality as its "pattern" creator.)
Once again, I truly appreciate your input and critique as I
attempt to order my thoughts and ideas. I hope my input
challenges others to new thoughts and ideas as well.
Pleased to have your acquaintance, Bruce, and thanks for lucidly outlining
an original worldview inspired by the Quality concept. As you see, I've
corrected the typo in the heading and wish you all the best in your journey
through Qualityland.
Essentially yours,
Ham
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Greetings, Bruce and All --
I hope you will give some consideration to the voice of a renegade here,
because this approach to Quality is a step in the wrong direction. I say
this not only because the basic premise is flawed, as I will attempt to
show, but because it is clear to me that what Bruce is proposing would not
have Mr. Pirsig's endorsement.
The MoQ postulated by Pirsig is based on Quality as the fundamental
Reality.
Any "subset" of Quality is either a "dynamic" level or a "static" pattern.
The levels evolve to a "better" (i.e., higher moral) state, whereas the
patterns remain fixed over time. This paradigm is theorized to encompass
all aspects and processes of the universe, at least insofar as they are
experienced.
Bruce's brainstorm is to make "static" apply to three Quality "states"
which
he defines as stasis, declination, and improvement. His idea contradicts
the MoQ in several significant respects.
First of all, the term "static" means "lack of movement, animation, or
progression," so it applies only to the state defined as "stasis". Clearly
a decline or an "improvement" in Quality is not a static state. Moreover,
"declination" (misspelled in the header) is not included in Pirsig's
paradigm. I'm not aware of any mention of Quality regressing or degrading
to a chaotic state in the author's thesis. Also, "improvement" is already
accounted for as the directional "movement" of Dynamic Quality. In short,
Bruce's three proposed "static states" are neither new to the MoQ scheme
nor
correctly named.
That would be problematic enough for Pirsig, but in Bruce's analytical
breakdown of this revised scheme he commits a semantic error which changes
the whole context of his argument. In truth, he's not really addressing
Quality as the "subject" of this analysis but as a modifier of the
nominative "states". Consider the headings:
1. Static Quality [the quality of STASIS]
2. Dynamic Quality of IMPROVEMENT
3. Dynamic Quality of DECLINATION
By using the three states of Quality as the active components of his
proposition, Bruce has made the "state" the modus operandi instead of
Quality itself. For example, he's really saying "Static Quality attempts
to maintain
the status over time;" "[Improvement's] mission is to improve Quality over
time;" "[Declination's] mission is to diminish or decay Quality over
time."
In all three cases it is the "force" or power of a particular state which
effects or produces the Quality change. I'm sure that Pirsig would point
out that "stasis" and "movement" are inherent in Quality itself, that the
resulting conditions or "states" are patterns of Quality.
I don't mean to be critical of Bruce's hypothesis, as it is well conceived
and could conceivably stand on its own as another perspective of
existential
reality. Instead of a hierarchy of Quality levels, we could reduce the
dynamics of the universe to Stasis, Dissolution, and Consolidation. (After
all, Hegel is remembered for having reduced all process to Thesis,
Antithesis, and Synthesis.)
The point of my critique is that this is Bruce Underwood's concept, not
Robert Pirsig's Quality thesis.
Respectfully submitted,
Ham
Bruce Said:
Hello Folks,
I have been wrestling with this idea for a while and thought I would throw
it out here for comments and banter. I hope to do better about responding,
but it is hard to find the time to respond as I would like to.
The idea here started off by thinking of what "Static" means and applying
that to three areas: Stasis, declination and improvement. As many of you
have seen, I think that Chaos is the state where something has declined
from
organization to an absolute state of disorganization and is thus the
opposite of Quality. However,energy still exists, but in a disorganized
state. Dynamic Quality will continue to affect the energy. I see things as
energy either moving towards improved organization or moving towards
chaotic
disorder. Below is a link to an image that depicts what I have been
thinking
about. You may want to think of it as life as you view it or most any item
that is static.
http://www.thinnerself.com/quality_of_improvement.gif
I was thinking about this and came to think of "Quality" as being in one
of
three states “Quality” states:
Static Quality:
Static Quality attempts to maintain the status over time. Static Quality’s
position is to neither improve nor decay, but to maintain status quo.
However, from an energy stand point, Static Quality must consume energy in
order to maintain its position to not be consumed by Dynamic Quality of
Chaos or Dynamic Quality of Improvement. By default then it would appear
that Static Quality is a destructive force by nature as it consumes energy
to remain static.
Dynamic Quality of improvement:
Its mission is to improve Quality over time by destruction and
construction
and to establish ratchet points of Quality. By nature, it consumes energy
to
move forward towards in a positive direction over time.
Dynamic Quality of declination:
It mission is to diminishes or decay Quality over time. Items move towards
chaos and are being consumed in destruction. The only state of "true
Static
Quality" is a state of total disorganization of energy into a chaotic
state.
Thanks for your thoughts and responses,
Bruce
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/
