To John and Platt
From Rog
Roger: I agree both Gould and Platt live in flatland or SOM, and that they
are very one dimensional.
JB Did you really mean Platt? See his latest post (20th June).
ROG: No, I meant Wright. Sorry Platt. Platt was the one that first
suggested we were approaching the topic from flatland.
ROG: It always seemed to me that Pirsig's static patterns were more moral
because they were more versatile, dynamic and creative. They experience
more and in a universe where experience is morality, greater sustainable and
growable experience is more moral. Intellect is highest because it is most
creative. Many disagree with me here, of course.
JB: I don't quite follow you here. Static patterns more dynamic? Do you mean
his metaphysics??
ROG: I said that confusingly. I meant that the more versatile and creative
and dynamic with a little d. The static patterns are intellectual
constructs derived from Dynamic Quality or pure experience. The intellectual
patterns refer to those experiences that are most creative and moral. Am I
making any sense?
JB: I do like your aphorism experience is morality. I'll have to think about
that one. I agree that value, morality, quality ... are experienced, and in
that sense I look at life as a journey of exploration, where the most
important encounters are experiential, and talking about these is fun but
hardly crucial.
I am not sure I agree that Intellect is highest because it is most
creative. Perhaps we are just quibbling over words, but when Pirsig
suggested a level of art, I think he was pointing, rather vaguely, to a
level above intellect. He went on to equate this, if I remember correctly,
with dynamic quality, but this is perhaps just too simple, for the dynamic
occurs at every level (ie the hot stove).
ROG: I don't think Pirsig's metaphysics ever really gets its hands around
ART. Or maybe it is just problems with my interpretation. I thought he
addressed ART better in ZMM.
ROG: I would say that evolution does imply progress , just not at any given
step. Progress (and lack of progress) is inevitable, but not at the
individual or species level, just at the Evolutionary level. And this
applies to virtually any definition of progress. This make any sense?
JB: Yes, it does.
Though I also would say that progress applies just as strongly at the
individual level. The individual becomes the microcosm through which the
evolutionary fall out is winnowed, and what emerges as having quality may be
garnered. As I said in my response to Platt, quality emerges in parallel
with life, and I am here extending that argument to say that quality
'evolves' in response to needs. But by needs I do not mean just food and
shelter, and so on, but higher level needs such as meaning. Without
individuals to embody this level of quality, we return to Whitehead's
aimless hurrying of material, endlessly, meaninglessly. So I take the
individual pursuit of quality very seriously. I think this was Teilhard de
Chardin's argument, though I have never read him. Perhaps we do disagree on
this?
ROG: I think we are in agreement here too.
Rog
PS -- Where were you three weeks ago Glenn?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
