Platt, I thought Pirsig said somewhere that higher patterns are DQ to lower.
And if he didn't, he should have. Because they demonstrably are. John On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 6:10 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > 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
