Re: MD True Libertarians Please Stand Up

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Dan,   I wrote 16/6 21:59 +0200 "My interpretation of the MoQ would be that social patterns OPERATE under their own set of moral codes and EVOLVE because of interaction with other levels. Pirsig writes in ch. 11 of Lila '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.' By analogy I would say 'Social evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at a subcellular level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static biological forces at a supercellular level.' and 'Intellectual evolution can be seen as a process by which weak Dynamic forces at an individual level discover stratagems for overcoming huge static social forces at a collective level.'"   You reply  17/6 10:45 -0500 "I believe Lila may contradict your analogy though I find it very intriguing... With your analogy ... one gets the impression that each of the four levels operates on the same underlying principle but Phaedrus clearly states the laws of the upper levels cannot be derived from the laws of the lower nor are they related."   As our own Quality-experience is the ultimate test of ... Quality (truth on the intellectual level, wisdom on the next level?), quotes from Lila do not immediately refute my analogy. Your being intrigued lends the analogy some Quality... Lila contains lots of contradictions if you interpret them only intellectually. As I wrote 9/6 21:54 +0200 ("Migration towards Dynamic Quality"-thread): "an intellectual pattern that alternatively describes DQ as "pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality", the goal of migrating patterns and the background of all static patterns (last one from Pirsig's SODV-paper, www.moq.org/forum/emmpaper.html p.13) is outright ridiculous from a narrow intellectual point of view." Being metaphysics the MoQ aims higher than intellect though. As Rog wrote 16/6 11:41 -0400 in reply to John B. "I do see Pirsig using Paradox to make much of the point." Even Lila p. 183 which you quote contains a paradox: after having explained the independence of levels with the analogy of flip-flops, software and novels, Pirsig identifies different moralities each implying direct competition of the values of a higher level and those of a lower level ("biology triumphs over the inorganic forces of starvation and death... social patterns triumph over biology ... intellectual morality ... is still struggling in its attempt to control society") and goes on to ... compare the unrelatedness of different moral codes (each relating two supposedly independent levels) to the unrelatedness of flip-flops and novels. And we already discussed how Pirsig explains in ch. 24 how intellect instructs society how to control biology... Unrelated moral codes? How do you mean??? I know "it only seems like that to intellect", as you write, but still my limited intellect is entangling itself in quite a lot of paradox when I try to square all this. In this case intellect may still find a way out of the apparent contradiction: I distinguished between moral codes under which a level operates (the law of the jungle on the biological level, competition for status or "the law" according to Lila p. 183 on the social level, competition for veracity on the intellectual level) and the way in which levels evolve. The ways in which levels evolve are analogous, but don't follow a law. They're just all being pushed/pulled by Dynamic Quality to migrate.   With friendly greetings,   Wim Nusselder