[MD] Sneddon Thesis

[Platt Holden]

Hi Ant,

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to find the textual support in 
Pirsig's work for Sneddon's descriptions of Dynamic Quality. I raised 
the question because of Pirsig's repeated caution that DQ cannot
be defined, such as in Lila -- "the 'undefined fittest' is identical to 
DQ" --  and in a letter to you dated March 1997,  -- "the MOQ 
incorporates a central term that isn't defined (i.e., Dynamic 
Quality)." Pirsig recognized this problem of definition in Lila with 
his famous reference to "Getting drunk and picking up bar ladies . . "

But more than this, what prompted me to write is the following from 
Note 56 in Lila's Child:

"The word 'produced' implies that  Dynamic quality is a part of a cause 
and effect system of the kind generated by scientific thinking.  But 
Dynamic Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system since all 
cause and effect systems are static patterns.  All we can say is that 
these static patterns emerged and that they are better than physical 
nothingness."

Now in reading Sneddon's thesis I got the definite impression from his 
use of the words I highlighted that for him DQ was part of a cause-
effect system. In other words, I felt he mislead the reader right off 
the bat. At least I didn't detect his cautioning the reader that DQ is 
"outside" any scientific-type, mechanism-driven explanatory paradigm.  
Otherwise, one might get the idea that DQ is kind of force or energy 
like electro-magnetism, and that DQ is the "mechanism" that drives 
evolution. If we were to adopt that idea, would we not be right back in 
the SOM soup again?  I think so. 

Anyway, much obliged for your thoughtful response. 

Best wishes,
Platt
 
> Platt Holden stated December 8th:

> Hi Ant,
> 
> Thanks for making available Part I of Sneddon’s MA thesis. In it he
> describes Quality and Dynamic Quality variously as:
> 
> -- a stimulus which our environment puts upon us
> -- a stimulus upon nature as a whole
> -- a stimulus to change
> -- the feeling that drives upwards
> -- an upward urge
> -- the present moment responds only to a feeling
> -- forward, upward urge of evolution
> 
> This is new descriptive vocabulary to me. It suggests the existence of
> an undefined, undifferentiated, omnipresent force or energy in the
> universe that we humans recognize by an emotional response.
> 
> Does this accurately reflect your understanding of the MOQ? Do
> Sneddon’s words -- stimulus, urge, feeling -- ring true to you?
> 
> 
> Ant McWatt comments:
> 
> Yes, on the whole, as many of the terms in these descriptions of Quality
> and Dynamic Quality (that you highlight from Part One of Sneddon’s
> thesis) are also to be found in ZMM and LILA.  Or, at least, strongly
> implied.  For instance:

> -- a stimulus which our environment puts upon us
> -- a stimulus upon nature as a whole
> 
> “That which causes us to invent the analogues is Quality.  Quality is
> the continuing stimulus which our environment puts upon us to create the
> world in which we live. All of it. Every last bit of it.” (ZMM, Chapter
> 20)
> 
> -- a stimulus to change
> 
> “But in addition there’s a Dynamic good that is outside of any culture,
> that cannot be contained by any system of precepts, but has to be
> continually rediscovered as a culture evolves.  Good and evil are not
> entirely a matter of tribal custom.  If they were, no tribal change
> would be possible, since custom cannot change custom.  There has to be
> another source of good and evil outside the tribal customs that produces
> the tribal change.”  (LILA, Chapter 9)
> 
> “In the past Phædrus’ own radical bias caused him to think of Dynamic
> Quality alone and neglect static patterns of quality.  Until now he had
> always felt that these static patterns were dead.  They have no love. 
> They offer no promise of anything.  To succumb to them is to succumb to
> death, since that which does not change cannot live
  The strongest
> moral argument against capital punishment is that it weakens a society’s
> Dynamic capability-its capability for change and evolution.  It’s not
> the ‘nice’ guys who bring about real social change.  ‘Nice’ guys look
> nice because they’re conforming.  It’s the ‘bad’ guys, who only look
> nice a hundred years later, that are the real Dynamic force in social
> evolution.  That was the real moral lesson of the brujo in Zuñi.  If
> those priests had killed him they would have done great harm to their
> society’s ability to grow and change.” (LILA, Chapter 13)
> 
> -- the feeling that drives upwards
> -- the present moment responds only to a feeling
> 
> “Poincaré then hypothesized that this selection is made by what he
> called the ‘subliminal self,’ an entity that corresponds exactly with
> what Phædrus called preintellectual awareness. The subliminal self,
> Poincaré said, looks at a large number of solutions to a problem, but
> only the interesting ones break into the domain of consciousness.
> Mathematical solutions are selected by the subliminal self on the basis
> of ‘mathematical beauty,’ of the harmony of numbers and forms, of
> geometric elegance. ‘This is a true esthetic feeling which all
> mathematicians know,’ Poincaré said, ‘but of which the profane are so
> ignorant as often to be tempted to smile.’ But it is this harmony, this
> beauty, that is at the center of it all.”  (ZMM, Chapter 22)
> 
> -- an upward urge
> -- forward, upward urge of evolution
> 
> “Not subject and object but static and Dynamic is the basic division of
> reality.  When A. N. Whitehead wrote that ‘mankind is driven forward by
> dim apprehensions of things too obscure for its existing language,’ he
> was writing about Dynamic Quality.  Dynamic Quality
 was the moral force
> that had motivated the brujo in Zuñi.  It contains no pattern of fixed
> rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is freedom and its only
> perceived evil is static quality itself-any pattern of one-sided fixed
> values that tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life.” 
> (LILA, Chapter 9)
> 
> “A metaphysics of substance makes us think that all evolution stops with
> the highest evolved substance, the physical body of man
  Absurd.  If
> it’s possible to imagine two red blood cells sitting side by side
> asking, ‘Will there ever be a higher form of evolution than us?’  and
> looking around and seeing nothing, deciding there isn’t, then you can
> imagine the ridiculousness of two people walking down a street of
> Manhattan asking if there will ever be any form of evolution higher than
> ‘man,’ meaning biological man.  Biological man doesn’t invent cities or
> societies any more than pigs and chickens invent the farmer that feeds
> them.  The force of evolutionary creation isn’t contained by substance.
> Substance is just one kind of static pattern left behind by the creative
> force.”  (LILA, Chapter 17)
> 
> [From Sneddon's Thesis, note that Whitehead also uses an expanded (i.e.
> beyond human) use of the term ‘creativity’].
> 
> “According to the Metaphysics of Quality these ‘human rights’ have not
> just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis.  They are
> essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level
> of life.  They are for real.” (LILA, Chapter 24)
> 
> --------------------------
> 
> However, having pointed out the above, I think Pirsig’s Dynamic-static
> terminology is preferable to Whitehead’s reliance on traditional SOM
> terms especially when referring to ‘subjects’.  For instance, if you
> examine the first section of Sneddon’s thesis it’s not immediately
> apparent that Whitehead is not just referring to human beings in
> relation to the universe when discussing subjects.  It’s only when Part
> One is read in context that it becomes apparent that by the term
> ‘subject’, Whitehead is referring to any entity that acts as a unit in
> some way (whether that’s a quantum particle, a cat or a computer).  This
> limitation of SOM terminology is, of course, summarised by Pirsig in
> ‘Subjects, Objects, Data, Values’:
> 
> ‘The Metaphysics of Quality provides a larger framework in which to
> integrate subjectivity and objectivity. Subjectivity and objectivity are
> not separate universes that have no connection to each other. They are
> instead separate stages of a single evolutionary process called value. I
> can find no place where the words subjective and objective are used
> where they cannot be replaced by one of the [four static value levels].
> When we get rid of the words ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ completely
> often there is a great increase in the clarity of what is said.’
> 
> A similar point concerning clarity can be made with the term ‘God’ which
> again would be better replaced in Whitehead’s philosophy with Pirsig’s
> term ‘Dynamic Quality’.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Anthony
> 
> 
> P.S. Since uploading Part One of Sneddon’s thesis I’ve recently
> corrected a number of errors that initially came to light with the html
> version.