Greetings all. I'm new to the list.
ROG:
In the sense that RMP uses it at the beginning of Ch13 where he writes
"....that which is more dynamic, that is, at a higher level of evolution, is
more moral." (P 183 of the paperback.)
It seems we either need to show justification for this statement (see my
last two posts from July), or accept that the entire metaphysics and ethical
system is based on this anecdotally supported, emotive comment. Or perhaps
someone can suggest another way out.........
BRAD:
Rog, you criticize anecdotal support and emotive comment, but you don't say
why. Emotions are more than 200 million years old, mediated (or made
possible) by a part of the brain known as the limbic system. Might there
not be something important about a mode of awareness whose biological basis
has been selected and preserved for over 200 million years? As far as I can
tell it is the emtional system which allows us to perceive what Pirsig calls
"the leading edge of the train" in ZMM and DQ in Lila. People with damage
to the limbic system (the emotion system) often show no judgement at all.
Everything is of equal vale to them and therefore valueless. The Zuni
"trouble maker" Pirsig speaks of in Lila was just following his emotions,
and he turned out to be crucial in preserving a viable Zuni community in the
midst of the "great white tribe." And notice that the Zuni story in Lila is
really an anecdote. Why? Because logic doesn't work for the type of
analysis Pirsig is pursuing. It's too constraining. It works by rules that
have a way of keeping knowledge and understanding static (don't get me
wrong, static latches, as has been said, have their place. Standardized
semantic and syntactical systems are allowing us to have this discussion
right now). That's why Pirsig spent over 400 pages arguing for rhetoric
over logic in ZMM (also recall that the emotional outbursts of Chris played
a large role in eventually turning the logical narrator back into Phaedrus).
I must admit to feeling some frustration over something about this month's
question/topic. The dynamic over static thing can be discussed for
clarification of terms or general explication, but ultimately it's a first
principle, and first principles can't be proved or disproved. You accept
them or you don't.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
