Hello Ham You just have to read the preview of my book "Money and the Art of Losing Control" to find the missing factor in Pirsig's MOQ.
Time, saved time, is the clue to understand the differentiated levels, the inorganic, organic, social and intellectual. DQ is a kind of economics. Anything that will last in time, that saves more time than it uses, earns a net time value, will exist as a static pattern. Particles, Species, Societies, Concepts, pragmatically useful in more than one situation for ex. Jan Anders 4 nov 2012 kl. 08.58 skrev Hamilton Priday: > > Hello again, Pirsig fans -- > > No, you haven't gotten rid of me. I've been following the discussion from > the sidelines for several months, waiting for the right opportunity to butt > in and clear the air, so to speak. So many controversial statements are > tossed out here with seeming impunity that one hardly knows where to begin. > So let me start with one made by MOQ's author himself. > > On Friday, Nov 2, David Buchanan quoted from two paragraphs of LILA, as > follows: > >> " ... Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act >> since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher >> mystic one. The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries >> to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries to >> devour the world intellectually. It attempts to capture the Dynamic within >> a static pattern. But it never does. You never get it right. So why try? >> It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. No matter >> how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 'right' for all >> people at all times, everywhere. Answers to ten questions led to a hundred >> more and answers to those led to a thousand more. Not only would he never >> get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger it would probably get. >> . . . ". > > Now this complaint appears in the final chapter, after Phaedrus has lost Lila > to her madness and presumably collected his own thoughts on the philosophy > that obsesses him. It confirms what I have always believed was the author's > personal love/hate relationship with "metaphysics" itself. He knows that if > Quality is to be introduced as a radical new philosophy, it must be packaged > as a metaphysical thesis. At the same time, he is torn by the mystical > (i.e., spiritual) connotation that this term conjures up for his audience. > > Pirsig (the author) dearly wants to be identified with the pragmatism of > James and the logical positivists. Pirsig (the philosopher) realizes that > his Quality thesis doesn't conform to the principles of scientific logic. In > his struggle to promote the philosophy of Quality while downplaying the > metaphysics, he is faced with a Catch-22. The result is this unfortunate > statement denigrating intellect as "a lower form of evolution" than "the > mystic one." > > Phaedrus's "intellectual error", as I see it, is his assumption that mystical > reality (or what I call Essence) is evolutionary. The experience of Quality > requires differentiation in time and space which only a creature of evolution > can perceive. The source of that Quality -- whether you call it DQ or > Essence -- is not bound to such existential conditions. In other words, the > fault lies in the author's metaphysics rather than in the "quality > experience" he is describing. There is no need to reject either mysticism or > metaphysics if your thesis is fundamentally sound. > > Mark appeared to be making the same point in his dialog with David back in > August. > > Mark asked: >> Why does Pirsig choose the scientific levels of inorganic, biological, >> social, and intellectual in order to create a metaphysics based on Quality? >> I know what they are, I am a scientist. Why does Pirsig find this >> particular method of sorting helpful? >> > Dmb says: >> I suppose there are countless reasons but the central purpose is to provide >> a set of moral codes based on an evolutionary hierarchy. >> > Mark follows up: >> Yes, there are countless reasons. However, they must all fit with >> what Pirsig is trying to describe with these specific examples. If I >> understand what dmb is saying, he is suggesting that each level is a >> moral code, and all four levels create a set. If morality is indeed >> codified by the levels, what is it within the levels that results in >> morality? Is it not better to say that morality creates these levels? >> >> My question to dmb, however, was more basic than that. Why does >> Pirsig find it to be necessary to present metaphysics of Quality using >> the four levels? What is fundamental about MoQ that necessitates >> this? By answering this question I was hoping he would provide some >> insight into some fundamental arguments of Quality. Are levels >> essential to create a metaphysics based on Quality? Are there not >> some fundamental parameters which better describe it? >> >> dmb replies: >> Same answer. DQ is what drives the MOQ's evolutionary morality. It's the >> source and substance of all static patterns and forms to basis for the >> highest moral code, the one that says DQ is higher than even the most >> evolved static level. > > Mark is questioning the need for an evolutionary hierarchy as a metaphysical > premise. > And so am I. > > Essentially yours, > 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/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
