Rich David Roger and all philosophers, Chapter 17 has a lot to say about DQ in terms of morality. After praise of the PROVISIONALITY of the scientific method, which allows evolutionary growth, Pirsig concludes... As Phaedrus has written on one of his slips of paper, "The pencil is mightier than the pen". "That's the whole thing: to obtain static and Dynamic Quality SIMULTANEOUSLY. If you don't have the static patterns of scientific knowledge to build upon you're back with the cave man. But if you don't have the freedom to change those patterns you're blocked from any further growth." Pirsig has described the moral codes and the levels in previous chapters, but in 17 the focus is on the Dynamic aspect of his moral universe. That is to say, Pirsig goes into the details of the meaning behind the 5th code, the code of Art. (Maybe this is why Roger wanted me to read the second half of the book?) We want to "keep" the static patterns and levels in the picture, but the fifth code demands that we strike a balance because there is BIG difference between evolution and degeneracy. This principle applies not only in the scientific method, Pirsig refers to Robert's Rules and constitutions and their jury erasers in this context too. Simultaneously, that's the whole thing. GIANTS AND JELLYFISH NEED DQ TOO The intellectual level is most dynamic and can change most rapidly, but this same idea applies at the social level too; NY city is the most dynamic place on earth and there's no doubt that it is the cultural capitol of the Nation. ( Well, not since Guliani cleaned up Times Square and legalized torture, but you know what I mean.) There is something that holds the "Giant" together, but she's always ready to change. And Pirsig even mentions how the biological quality in Lila chooses her bed partners DYNAMICALLY, even though "She doesn't see intellectual quality at all. It's outside her range. She doesn't even see social quality." Without the benifit of the top two levels, Lila can still be dynamic. Shake your booty. And according to this same principle, there is uncertainty even for inorganic static patterns. The sun'll come up tommorrow. You can bet your bottom dollar that....tomorrow.. THE PART ROGER CAN LOVE The basic principle behind the fifth moral code is... Its wrong to supress evolution. One way to be wrong is to be too locked into static patterns, to resist change. The other way is to become degenerate, to go back with the caveman. The fifth moral code applies at all levels, but it doesn't undo the static levels, its about that simultaneous-ness. But here's the quote Roger might have used in the war... "When you define morality scientifically as that which enhances evolution it sounds as though you have really solved the problem of what morality is. But when you try to say specifically what is and what isn't EVOLUTION and where EVOLUTION IS GOING, you find you are right back in the soup again. The problem is that you can't really say whether a SPECIFIC CHANGE is evolutionary at the time it occurs. It is only with a century or so of hindsight that it appears evolutionary." As you can guess by my added emphasis, the kind of skepticism Roger expresses seems most valid in this respect. Moral conflicts between static patterns and the levels are concrete and certain compared to analyzing change and revolution. That's like telling the future. Who knows what strange fad will catch on, or what obscure novelist will be the 25th century's Shakesphere? Who knows if Pirsig will fade into obscurity or not? As Phaedrus said when he finally arrived at the idea of static quality itself, :"Better dig in and do some static latching..." DMB MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
