do we deserve to survive?

the more one looks at the world, the more disenfranchised one gets with the state of human rationality. we pride ourselves on being the only sentient beings on this planet, but at even a cursory glance, that belief is quickly evaporated in the face of human behaviour.
what would a rational species do in a situation such as ours right now?
well, as things stand right now, our survival as a whole is at stake, from more than one perspective.
leaving all moral discussion about human behaviour aside, the current decisions being made and the current practice in very substantial matters are very far from rational.
to stick to the two most pressing issues, global climate change and the threat of nuclear war, human behaviour past and present has shown quite clearly that we are not at all sentient to the extent we would like to believe.
a sentient being would regard the opinions of specialists on said matters highly and would act accordingly. but if one looks at public opinion on either matter, it is clear, that human emotionalism is far more powerful than human rationality.
scientists in both areas have more than often warned us about the current state of affairs. global warming is not only a real threat, it is a nasty type of threat. it is fairly unnatural for a human to act on something not immediately visible. though the entire scientific community has been preaching in unison the dangers of enviromental irresponsability, the public reacts far more violently to populism and business-run propaganda based on base fears and the dislike of smarter-than-thou opinions. the massive counter-information campaign in this matter is so disturbingly effective, it begs the question, what are we do-gooders really trying to save?
humanity in our hopelessly optimistic mind is a noble species, capable of great achievements in science, morals and other areas we can all agree are the highest ideals we can strive towards.
if we are realistically to succeed in our endeavour of saving ourselves, we must allow one shameful conclusion. we cannot do so without stooping to our enemies' level of manipulation. and alas, fighting fire with fire in this instance has also proven to be a sisyphus project.
the rational few, who hold little real power over information dont stand a chance against the massive media-juggernaut we face.
humans dont only lie themselves into a false sense of security though, we also choose to simply ignore pressing issues, though the origin of this behaviour is the same as the aforementioned.
one can rant and rave as long as one wants to about the dangers of nuclear war, but as long as our rulers and their most powerful enforcers (mass-media) are against the idea of dismantling nuclear arsenals worldwide, we will never see the dawn of a wmd-free world.
motivations are as plain as the nose on your face. what bully would voluntarily and without force cease to terrorise his peers? power is the most terrible drug known to man. none can resist it and none would ever give it up willingly.
back we go to rationality and its impotence in the face of a violent and power-loving species.
our tactics always make one fatal mistake. we assume that we can abide by the collectively established peaceful means we as a fictitiously rational species claim to strive towards, and achieve a massive change in attitudes and behaviour. in the climate of total domination of our lives by a select few, this is a lost battle from the get-go.
we have every possible systemic disadvantage imaginable. should we use our knowledge, empirical proof and logical arguments to attempt to pursuade, we are battered by emotionally laden rhetoric. should we dare suggest direct action, we are quite literally battered by the other pillar of our rulers enforcing-machinery, the executive arm of government. should we suggest indirect action, the only successful tool we really have at our disposal, our army (the general public, the holders of all real power in any society) is faced with existence-threatening measures (loss of work, alienation, ridicule etc.).
we face a losing battle, my friends. we are left with a simple decision to make. keep up the good fight (good as in neccessary, not as a moral judgement. we agreed to leave that aside), or admit defeat.
the fundamental success of the powerful few lies in a simple truth. a powerful being is only as powerful as he believes himself to be. and after decades of propaganda, distraction and mind-numbing advertising, the human we wish to really exist, himself doesnt know he (potentially) exists.
we cry about waking up said human, but do we really want to? the human we wish to see arise from its slumber is a mental ideal. it doesnt exist. should we awaken the bohemoth it will be a directionless one, leaving a vaccuum of control at the top, which in our utopia we, the rational ones, would wish to fill. the problem is, this model produces the same world we are struggling to dismantle right now. power is a drug, and no human, even a sentient one, is immune.

The Quality of Pirsig

Recently Miles lent me his copy of Robert Pirsig's book "Lila" and having read Pirsig's first book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" I thought I should give Lila a go. Miles informed me that this book contained more information about Pirsig's metaphysics of quality.
In his first book, Pirsig talks briefly about the concept of "quality" stating it is impossible to define it as it precedes reality. The motivation for further expanding on his theory of quality is Pirsig's willingness to prove that he has not simply evaded any discussion about quality by defining it as undefinable. So in "Lila" he has interwoven his metaphysical theory with a story about sailing (more or less...we want to focus on his theory).
First of all, quality is value. According to Pirsig, value is the underlying force of all being (hence metaphysics). Value and quality are synonyms. This is more or less what Arthur Schopenhauer also said about the world as a moral force, and before him many others including certain Buddhist philosophers.
A problem arises however when we consider who has values. It must certainly be one of man's defining traits that man alone holds values. How could atoms, after all, judge what they are doing without consciousness or the capacity to reflect? An animal does have a certain moral character. It feels pain and does not like it, it makes loud noises and tries to struggle free from whatever is causing it pain. But can we say that it is moral if it expresses a willingness to avoid pain? Is morality not a certain way of acting expressed between two people?
We could also view as problematic the concept of a universal force behind all being. We might hold the view that there are many forces behind life. Or we could negate the possibility of any force behind life. This of course is difficult to debate, as there is no way of finding out the truth, nor is this discussion not routed in the physical world but in the world behind the physical world. This is the main problem metaphysics faces. It is really just a matter of setting up theories about which one can hardly debate as the theme of the debate is far greater than our minds could conceive. That is why there were so many different theories postulated 2000 years ago, at the time when most philosophers were searching for the one force behind all being, the apeiron. With the arrival of science in the 17th century the energy of mankind was focused on physical matters.
But let's get back to Pirsig. After naming "quality" as the metaphysical force driving all being, Pirsig divides quality into dynamic and static quality. These two categories are not contradictory, as they make up one force.
Dynamic quality is change. Static quality is a lack of change.
Dynamic quality is instantaneously recognised without conception, whereas static quality describes conceptualised patterns.
What this comes down to is social criticism (dynamic quality) and tradition (static quality).
Pirsig further divides static quality into four sub-categories:

-inorganic static quality (from now on SQ)
-biological SQ
-social static SQ
-intellectual SQ

According to Pirsig, there is an evolutionary relationship between those four subcategories, meaning that inorganic static quality is less evolved than biological static quality and so on.
Inorganic SQ is matter. Biological SQ are living things and instincts as well. Social SQ are all institutions of society, rituals and habits. Intellectual SQ are ideas.
One thing Pirsig does not clarify is to which category emotions belong.
Are they part of biological SQ or intellectual SQ? And if they are part of biological SQ, is Pirsig of the opinion that pre-dominantly emotional people are less evolved than pre-dominantly intellectual, analytical people? And how can ideas be static? Are they not to be judged by their content, so that an idea can be either static or dynamic?
There certainly are many people who abide by the law, who follow rituals set by society. According to Pirsig, those people are less evolved than intellectuals. I would say that intellectuals are well-read, learned and educated when it comes to a certain part of knowledge (as a physicist is learned in physics), but this does not mean they are ethical or learned when it comes to ethical behaviour. Perhaps a person is intellectual when it comes to his/her field of expertise but follows set ethical rules. Is this person then evolved and unevolved at the same time?
Pirsig describes the 19th century as the century dominated by social SQ and the 20th as the century dominated by intellectual SQ. The 20th century was, according to Pirsig, not free from social SQ. He says that most of the problems of the 20th century came from the struggle between social SQ and intellectual SQ. Apparently the first world war had nothing to do with economic interests, the struggle for power and territory...Kaiser William the second was just following social convention which was, at that time, to start the largest war in history (until then)...
Anyway, all in all, I think Pirsig's theory is not exactly wrong, but unoriginal and in many ways problematic. The book itself has many beautiful scenes and is well-written. It is definitely worth reading, but I find it is better to regard Pirsig as an author and not a philsopher, and "Lila" as literature, not as a book on metaphysics.

---

Metaphysics of Quality homepage

Die Freuden der telefonischen Kommunikation

ein paket, an die firma "Dangaard" geschickt...
da hat wohl wer etwas falsch verstanden: