[Ron] This is one of those difficult quotes from Nietzche in which the moniker of "nilhist" became attached to him. [Krimel] It's been awhile. Good hearing from you. I hope all is well in your part of the world. Nietzsche had no problem with the nihilist moniker. He discusses three different kind of nihilism and I believe endorsed what he call an active nihilism which would embrace the death of Absolutes as a healthy liberation and the rise of the ubermensch.
[Ron] I think on these terms Pirsig diverges with the idea of Dynamic quality being the undefined good (that downside being levels of good in competition as a secondary distinction) that lends greater explanitory power than Nietzches's Chaos. That is not to lessen the caution of anthropomorphism in any way but these ideas fit into an overall explanation based on the concept of evolution and Nietzches chaos fails to perform in that aim. [Krimel] I am no expert on Nietzsche but I suspect that he would regard the MoQ, at least as some here interpret it, as another futile attempt to establish a new absolute. Nietzsche's perspectivism would be more or less like Pirsig's pictures in a gallery so I think he would like that. But would not care much for those who hold up this picture or that as "better" or as a replacement for all the other pictures in the gallery. Nietzsche was heavily influenced by Darwin and provides a very Darwinian explanation of how the things we take to be Absolutes evolve into becoming regarded as Absolute. There is some suggestion that he was also influenced by Helmholz one of the founders of thermodynamics and the seriously depressing idea of entropy. [Ron] Hesiod said "First of things was chaos made, then broadbreasted earth...and love supreme among mortals". When confronted with the difficulty of explaining why a thing is of necessity he drags the mind in sideways; in other explanations he uses everything rather than mind to account for the facts. Failing to use the explanation consistantly it lacks persuasive power. [Krimel] The mythology of most advanced cultures like the Greeks, as you point out, begins with an account of the triumph of Order over Chaos. The Egyptians, the Aztecs and the Jews are obvious examples. [Ron] However I think it was hit apon rather well with this statement: [Krimel] Necessity just means thing have to happen in a certain way and not some other. [Ron] Which is to say, wether we like it or not. Shooting a hole in the pure anthropomorism status given to the good in the terms of what we like to call truth. [Krimel] I believe Nietzsche would reject any notion of truth or good applied as a universal. The one perspective he really had no patience with was the "view from nowhere" or the "God's eye view" which is just fantasy. ------------------------------------------------------------------- [Krimel] Pirsig shows a dim apprehension of this, even though he can't resist anthropomorphizing, when he says, "Biological evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subatomic level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic level. They do this by selecting superatomic mechanisms in which a number of options are so evenly balanced that a weak Dynamic force can tip the balance one way or another." He highlights the affinity, I would say identity of DQ and chaos when he says, "To cling to Dynamic Quality alone apart from any static patterns is to cling to chaos." A quote that lies outside the orthodox cannon of the MoQ. Much like this one: "It doesn't make any sense. It seems to say that all life is headed toward chaos, since chaos is the only alternative to structural patterns that a law-bound metaphysics can conceive." It is pretty clear that Pirsig doesn't understand chaos the way Nietzsche and the chaos theorists do, he shares your confusion and you can hear it when he says, "It doesn't make sense." [Ron] Well, remember he has to fit dynamic quality consistantly with the whole of his system which he does rather well. We can see where and why Pirsig diverges with Fred but it's not because he is confused about the nature of chaos but how dynamic quality can include chaos within the explanation of a value centered reality and also explain truth, he sees as I stated above, chaos doesent do the job. Not even Freds chaos because it does lack necessity in it's explanation ultimately. [Krimel] I see a problem in saying the Pirsig had to fit DQ into his system. His system begins with his primary division of which DQ is one part. It seems to me that the rest of the system had to be structured around that division. This I think is why Pirsig thought finding just the right division to illuminate Quality was so important that he abandoned his first crack at the romantic/classic split. It wasn't that it didn't work but rather like the S/O spilt it did not work as well as we might like. [Ron] Despite his preface because I think Fred was reacting to the times and wanted to speak out towards anthro-centricities in science yet he lacked the explanitory power to apply it in a consistant whole thesis. That is why it was taken as nihlism instead of a re-working of the theory of (percepably) [empiricist mind you]chaotic systems in an effort towards greater clarity and precision in scientific observation (truth finding) and you have to be careful not to undercut that aim in the end which is why he made that preface to begin with I can only presume. [Krimel] Nietzsche does not go on at any length about chaos. He sees it as reawakening as a result of the death of absolutes. He mentions it a few times mainly for effect I suspect. He claims that enlightened Nietzschians, as free spirits, should embrace it. His description of it comports well with more modern ways of thinking about it in a way, I fear, Pirsig saw dimly if at all. 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
