[MD] Taking Words Seriously

[david buchanan]

Matt said to dmb:
... it's theoretically paramount for me to say that "what you want to say" doesn't _have_ standards implied, but _are_ implied standards. Weird, but also to my mind exactly parallel to the Pirsigian aphorism "we don't _have_ static patterns, we _are_ static patterns." ... I'd say that "building a tailor-made set of standards" _is_ "the actual empirical process.

dmb replied:
I don't see how that aphorism is relevant here. ...I think Pirsig is talking about something else entirely, namely the compound, complex, non-Cartesian nature of the self.  ...Think about the relationship between "standards" and "the actual empirical process" in terms of the relationship between static quality and Dynamic Quality.

Matt said:
...I think the aphorism is relevant.  Because I want to deny that we should think about the relationship between the standards and the process on that analogy between static patterns and DQ. ... I take it that by saying our non-Cartesian self _is_ static patterns, one is saying that you do not _have_ standards, but _are_ standards.  And if this is the case, what is "in process" other than those static patterns/standards (one's "self")?  Because if you _have_ the patterns, then you can make an easy distinction between the process and the standards.  But how one makes the distinction doesn't look clear to me if one subscribes to the aphorism.


dmb says:

Okay, even if I play along and pretend that the aphorism is relevant, there is still a very big problem. You're only working with the static half of the aphorism and this static side has been flattened or simplified to become simply "static patterns", as opposed to a complex, migrating forest of patterns from the various levels WITH the capacity to respond to DQ. DQ is the other half, of course. If you're going to subscribe to Pirsig's pithy description of the self, I think it's only fair to include the whole idea. Or, to say the same thing more aggressively, I think its unfair to exclude half of the idea. 

"Lila is composed of static patterns of value and these patterns are evolving toward a Dynamic Quality. ...She's on her way somewhere like everybody else. And you can't say where that somewhere is. ...'All life is a migration of static patterns of quality toward Dynamic Quality." (Lila 139)

"...Phaedrus saw instantly that those seemingly trivial, unimportant, 'spur of the moment' decisions that Mayr was talking about, the decisions that directed the progress of evolution are, in fact, Dynamic Quality itself. Dynamic Quality, the source of all things, the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, always appears as 'spur of the moment'. Where else could it appear?". (Lila 143)

"The increase in versatility is directed toward Dynamic Quality. The increase in power to control hostile forces is directed toward static quality. Without DQ the organism cannot grow. Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed." (Lila 147)

"But sometimes it's Dynamic, where your whole being senses that the static situation is an enemy of life itself. That's what drives the really creative people - the artists, composers, revolutionaries and the like - the feeling that if they don't break out of this jailhouse somebody has built around them, they're going to die. But they're not being contrary in a way that is just decadent. They're way too energetic and aggressive to be decadent. They're fighting for some kind of Dynamic freedom from the static patterns. But the freedom they're fighting for is a kind of morality too. And it's a highly important part of the overall moral process. ..Without its continual refreshment static patterns would simply die of old age." (Lila 359)

"If you compare the levels of static patterns that compose a human being to the ecology of a forest, and if you see the different patterns sometimes in competition with each other, sometimes in symbiotic support of each other, but always in a kind of tension that will shift one way or the other, depending on evolving circumstances, then you can also see that evolution doesn't take place only within societies, it takes place within individuals too. It's possible to see Lila as something much greater than a customary sociological or anthropological description would have her be. Lila then becomes a complex ecology of patterns moving toward Dynamic Quality. Lila individually, herself, is in an evolutionary battle against the static patterns of her own life." (Lila 360)

dmb resumes:
As you can see, the MOQ's description of the self always includes this Dynamic half of the equation and this description is often repeated and elaborated upon and otherwise stars as a central feature throughout the book. (The quotes I've selected span 221 pages and that's just a small sample!) This description of the self certainly has some powerful implications for the way one ought to conduct oneself, but the question of WHAT you ARE and the question of HOW you should ACT are two different questions. I think you're giving half of the right answer and that answer only makes sense in response to a separate question.