[MD] Betternes - 4 levels of!

[118]

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:36 AM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

>  Hi Mark
>
> As far as I can see the 4 statements I presented are pretty much a summary
> of static/stable patterns in relation to DQ and sums up much of what Pirsig
> wrote in Lila.
>
> At the Inorganic level (Order is better than Chaos) if there were no order
> there would be no elements or molecules and thus no planets, stars galaxies
> etc. - an infinity of chaos/energy.
> The Organic/Biological level (Alive is better than Dead) builds on the
> Inorganic level through complex molecules through which life emerges,
> survives and sustains itself.
> The Social level (Together is better than Alone) builds on the
> Organic/Biological level to create groups/families/societies etc. which
> further enhance the prospect of merely surviving.
> And at the Intellectual level (Reason is better than Dogma) we have reason
> to allow us to think about what we are taught to unthinkingly repeat by
> institutions at the social level.
>
> In the above, I think, we can see where Dynamic Quality relates to Static
> Patterns of Value in that each level - as Pirsig described - emerges from
> the previous level. It also become, to me at least, easy to see where there
> is a moral preference - i.e. betterness.
> But if you think, as you appear to do, that the above is just dogma then
> try reversing the statements and see what falls out:
>
> Would you rather have chaos/disorder than order and consequently nothing
> but random energy?
> Would you rather be dead then alive?
> Would you rather be alone and isolated then have company?
> Would you rather repeat others nonsense and orthodoxy or would you rather
> think for yourself?
> Would you rather change to stagnation or the new to the old?
>
> It all comes down to what is preferable.
>
> It would seem that where Pirsig has created something so simple to
> understand, there are others who would try to complicate it to the point
> where what initially makes sense becomes incomprehensible.
>
> How do we know alive is better than dead? Easy. Top yourself and find out!
> Let me know how that one goes!
> My interpretation of Dogma? Endlessly repeating what someone else has said
> without thinking about why it may be true, false or somewhere in between. If
> I were just repeating the above, ad nauseum and mantra stylee, then it would
> be dogma. As it is I've given it considerable thought and found it to have
> immense value.
>
> Horse
>
>
> [Mark]

Hi Horse,
Thanks for the above.  Don't get wrong, I fully subscribe to to the sense of
betterness that you posted as summarized by the examples.  I am not
questioning those as effective descriptions.  My only point was that we
accept them as is, and then move on to betterness or Quality, to ask how?  I
certainly do prefer reasoning along such lines, that is why I endeavor to
make it more clear.  Indeed questioning is a good tool to bring about
reason.  That is what I was doing with my post to you.

As I see it, we have to start somewhere.  That somewhere is not always a
product of reason.  Certainly such precepts can be further supported, but
such support becomes somewhat self-referential.  However, that is to be
expected since that is the nature of knowledge.  I have no doubt that what
has been referred to as Dogma has also undergone significant thought and
reason by those who search for such things.  Then there are those who accept
the teachings of those who thought and work out such dogma.  We see this all
the time in the fields of science.  It would not make sense to have to
rethink many of the principles that form the basis of an advanced science.
 Such dogma is trusted.

Again, I was not disputing what you posted, only disputing it's presumed
lack of Dogma.

Cheers,
Mark