ROGER EXPLORES DQ AND CHOICE
To Dave, Jonathan, Marco, Mark and MOF'ers of all sizes and stripes
I)DYNAMIC
This months topic involves the entanglement of at least 4 terms. DYNAMIC,
EVOLUTION, CHOICE, AND MORALITY. I believe that we can support Pirsig's
statement that "that choice which is more Dynamic, that is, at a higher level
of evolution, is more moral." But to do so we need to delve more into these
terms and how they are related. I would like to start with some explorations
into DYNAMIC.
Let me launch this journey from a line of Mark's: "The here and now (DQ) is
better than the past (sq)."
I much prefer this interpretation of DQ and sq to his previous analogy. But
let me see if I can take us even further out onto that ledge......
Pure experience precedes the dualism of subject and object, mind and matter,
here and there. DQ precedes sq. The fundamental division of reality isn't
between subjects and objects, mind and matter, or here and there, it is
undivided reality and divided reality. The fundamental metaphysical division
is inherent in the choice to divide it at all. [I wrote this passage last
weekend, but now find Dave has pursued a similar path]
Pirsig takes this issue head on in Chapter 5, when he wrestles with leaving
the pristine Quality of ZMM alone or degenerating into metaphysics. By doing
so, he foreshadows the answers to two key questions that develop over the
following sections of the book.
Does Lila have Quality?
and,
What is the best metaphysical division?
The primal duality is not in the choice of dualities. It is the choice of
whether to divide at all. Pirsig faces this choice on page 73:
" The central reality of mysticism, the reality that Phaedrus had called
"Quality" in his first book, is not a metaphysical chess piece. Quality
doesn't have to be defined.... Quality is direct experience independent of
and prior to intellectual abstractions. Quality is indivisible, undefinable
and unknowable in the sense that there is a knower and a known, but a
metaphysics can be none of these things. A metaphysics must be divisible,
definable and knowable, or there isn't any metaphysics.....A 'Metaphysics of
Quality' is essentially a contradiction in terms, a logical absurdity."
He defines metaphysics as a degenerative activity. However, he is drawn
compulsively to building one anyways. He decides that it is more
degenerative to fail to explore this path.
What can we deduce from Chapter 5? I suggest:
1) The DQ of Lila is the Quality of ZMM. The above passage, when combined
with his continuous equating of DQ with direct experience and mysticism
throughout the book, supports a very strong relationship of DQ to the Quality
of ZMM. It is the Romantic and Classical split that he tosses out with the
new DQ (Quality undivided) and sq (Quality divided sorted and
conceptualized). If this interpretation is right, then the romantic/classic
division was a lower quality conceptual division of reality that can be
placed on a shelf somewhere between SOM and the division of Lila.
2) The best opening to the metaphysical chess game of how to divide reality
is between playing chess and not playing chess. Between undivided reality
and divided reality. Between DQ -- the Quality of ZMM -- and sq -- the
intellectualized, divided, degenerative Metaphysics of Quality. The best
metaphysical map is a map that acknowledges that it references something else
that is not contained on its pages, and the best move in chess acknowledges
that there is a move that occurs prior to the chess pieces ever touching the
board. Although there may be no perfect opening to the metaphysical game of
chess, the essential first move is deciding to play at all. DQ and sq are
the perfect opening. Although subsequent moves can later lead to failure,
the common denominator to every victory at chess is the decision to play in
the first place.
II) CHOICE
Now let me extend this chess analogy in another direction, to an exploration
into the term CHOICE. To do so, let me introduce you to an awesome book by
Kevin Kelly. Called "Out Of Control," it is an intellectual journey into the
issues of evolution, complexity, freedom, and control. One of my favorite
passages in this book is in Kelly's explanation of the rules of thumb used
both by grand masters of chess and by the best chess computer programs. Most
fascinating is that Kelly points out that these rules of thumb don't just
apply to chess. They can literally be read as rules to live by. See for
yourself.......
1) Favor moves that increase options.
2) Shy away from moves that end well but require cutting off choices.
3) Work from strong positions that have many adjoining strong positions.
4) Balance looking ahead to REALLY paying attention to what's happening now
on the WHOLE board.
Are the key moves of chess programs another way of stating (in chess terms)
THAT CHOICE WHICH IS MOST DYNAMIC IS THE BEST (most moral)? I think so.
This may not prove a darn thing, but it does seem relavent.
I think the deeper issue is to clarify CHOICE in the MOQ. Marco really got me
thinking when he wrote "Existence is a continuous choice. If to choose is to
pursue what's more valuable, then existence is necessarily a movemnt toward
excellence." Similarly, citing the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Jonathan wrote
"systems evolve towards increasing (degrees of) freedom."
In skimming through Lila I found a passage on p180 that supports Marco and
Jonathan's views. ..."if moral judgements are essentially assertions of value
and if value is the fundamental groundstuff of the world, then moral
judgements are the fundamental groundstuff of the world." And on the
following page Pirsig adds "...everything is an ethical activity."
If a choice is a behavioral pattern of value, then choices are by definition
a movement toward quality. Still, the question remains, which choice is the
most dynamic? Which choice is the most evolved? Is it the choice which leads
to the greatest freedom of choice?
Is this month's topic a tautology? Is choice itself not a part of reality?
Are we not saying that if reality is morality then the widest range of
potential reality is the MOST real? Expanding choice is expanding morality
which is expanding reality. Do you see what I mean....?
Rog
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
