On 19 Sep 2010 at 19:11, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote: [Platt] The context makes it evident Pirsig is not talking about amoebas or dogs.
[Arlo] He is talking about a human being as a source of ideas (intellectual response), so sure only human beings can respond intellectually to DQ. Consider the greater context of Pirsig's writings. ""The easiest intellectual analogue of pure Quality that people in our environment can understand is that `Quality is the response of an organism to its environment' (he used this example because his chief questioners seemed to see things in terms of stimulus-response behavior theory). An amoeba, placed on a plate of water with a drip of dilute sulfuric acid placed nearby, will pull away from the acid (I think). If it could speak the amoeba, without knowing anything about sulfuric acid, could say, `This environment has poor quality.' If it had a nervous system it would act in a much more complex way to overcome the poor quality of the environment. It would seek analogues, that is, images and symbols from its previous experience, to define the unpleasant nature of its new environment and thus `understand' it.... In our highly complex organic state we advanced organisms respond to our environment with an invention of many marvelous analogues. We invent earth and heavens, trees, stones and oceans, gods, music, arts, language, philosophy, engineering, civilization and science." (ZMM) The invention of marvelous analogues (intellectual response to DQ) is part of the human experience because of our "highly complex organic state". An amoeba's far less complex state permits it only to respond biologically (pull away from the acid). This statement from ZMM predicts the MOQ's hierarchy almost to the "T". Pirsig extends this in LILA when he says, "When inorganic patterns of reality create life the Metaphysics of Quality postulates that they've done so because it's "better" and that this definition of "betterness" -this beginning response to Dynamic Quality-is an elementary unit of ethics upon which all right and wrong can be based." (LILA) Also, if you wish to insist (again) that only a human being can respond to DQ at all, then perhaps this time around you'll think about actually answering these questions. Before "man" appeared, lets say during the Jurassic period, give me an example of something that could respond to DQ, and what that response looked like? We know plenty from the archeological record so that such an answer should be simple for you. I mean, "something" had to be responding to DQ before "man" appeared, but what? [Platt} Since you think there is a simple answer to the question, what is the "something" that wasn't the activity of an already established static pattern? When "man" appeared, did everything that could respond to DQ just suddenly stop? [Platt] Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, yes. All value patterns at all levels are static They cannot respond to DQ. Pirsig says so in no uncertain terms as I previously showed. DQ responses are limited only to a human being, a composite of all static levels PLUS the ability to respond to DQ. The rest of what you seem to think are responses to DQ are simply the result of static patterns of behavior, entirely predictable, like jumping off a hot stove.. Finally, consider this statement from LILA. "When the person who sits on the stove first discovers his low-Quality situation, the front edge of his experience is Dynamic. He does not think, "This stove is hot," and then make a rational decision to get off. A "dim perception of he knows not what" [BPP134] gets him off Dynamically. Later he generates static patterns of thought to explain the situation." (LILA) Do you think a dog sitting on a hot stove has any different of an experience than this? This is directly parallel to the amoeba and acid analogy in ZMM. It is clear that in both cases, jumping off a hot stove and pulling away from acid are response to Dynamic Quality; whether by a human, a dog, or an amoeba. As Pirsig points out, the difference for the human is the complex analogues (intellectual patterns) that it can weave due to its social nature. [Platt] All such examples are static patterns of behavior entirely predictable. As for what responded to DQ before man appeared and when is a matter of pure speculation. We know, however, that the Dynamic response that moved evolution forward by creating life happened just once as did the creation of the evolutionary process itself, both unpredictably. Now evolution is in the hands of human individuals like Pirsig whose MOQ was the unpredictable creation of one man. For further evidence, Pirsig's SODV talk is all about individuals responding to DQ "in the throes of creative discovery." Amoebas and dogs need not apply for creative enterprises. We've been around this barn several times before. We've each made our case repeatedly. Now it's up to each reader to decide for him or her self. (Note my obeisance to P.C.) If you want the last word, go for it. . 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/md/archives.html
