My one sentence answer to this month's question would simply be: Dynamic is not more moral than static. Of course, I suppose it would be best to elaborate a little bit. It is my opinion that working in the realm of practice rather than theory is the best way to proceed on this topic (and most other topics for that matter), since if the MOQ doesn't have any correspondence to the real world then it really isn't of much use. Accordingly, I will forward two possible translations for "Dynamic is more moral than static" from metaphysics to practical reality: "change is better than consistency" and "freedom is better than order." Practical experience, however, seems to dictate that this simply isn't the case. Constant change for its own sake and unlimited freedom more often than not result in mere chaos. This isn't to say that the opposite is any better. When change and freedom are stifled completely, all that results is stagnation and oppression. The key to achieving quality in any system is maintaining a balance between the two forces (as the two major political parties tend to do in this country). Counter-examples in the realm of politics would be the Soviet Union and other totalitarian regimes of this century, which were cases where freedom was repressed at the service of complete order, and post-Communist Russia, where the freedom unleashed on the country has been so strong that it has nearly destroyed social order all together. It is my opinion that Pirsig agreed in this need for balance, although it may have often seemed that he favored the Dynamic over the static. Perhaps the prime example would be the literary creation of the character Lila. She represents a clear case where stable intellectual patterns had been wiped out. I think at one point Phaedrus comments that what she needs is some "static latching." For in the realm of the mind, order at the expense of freedom is close-mindedness, while freedom at the expense of order is insanity. In order to explain the reason why balance is so important, I will use the illustration of Darwin's theory of natural selection. Over the course of the evolution of life, an innumerable number of evolutionary developments have been tested by whatever force is driving this evolution (we, of course, choose to call it Dynamic Quality). Only a small fraction of these developments, however, have succeeded. The reason is that the changes have to be tested against reality. The ones that work (sustain life with more quality) are naturally selected. If evolution simply excepted the proposition any change is a good change, then it certainly wouldn't serve the best interests of life. - Matt MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
