At 11:37 PM -0800 2/12/00, John Beasley wrote:
>John C and others,
>
>I'm a little amused at your assumption, John, that as I do not accept the
>primacy Pirsig
>accords the intellectual level that I am somehow agin intellectuals. For
>me its "Been there,
>done that."
Well, glad to be of amusement.
As to my mistaken assumptions and whatnot. You're probably right. I'm
mostly wrong. But that was the Old me and the new me would like to address
your main point:
> I agree with Struan, here. Either we are a rather stupid
>bunch, which I don't accept, or what Pirsig has to say is just not up to
>the >task of clarifying
>moral issues, amongst other things. And since he asserts quality is
>morality, >this is a rather
>serious outcome. Serious, that is, if you are a 'true believer'.
There's one passage where he said it perfectly... I can't recall it word
for word and I don't keep a copy handy except in my brain... but Pirsig
makes a comment about "listening to the wind". The ancient greeks would
never have attempted to try and define with words the arete he was striving
for. For that they listened to the wind.
Clarifying moral issues begins with aknowledgeing that there are such
things and then from there everything becomes possible. Pirsig made an
important breakthrough for himself personally, but he never claimed to
have all the answers. We personally, each one in our own lives have to
discover our path to quality and there is no way to encode that process
perfectly. Agreed? So the best one can hope for is a dance, a story a
fable that speeds us on our way and helps us to avoid some very dangerous
traps in thinking.
So what's the problem again? It's not a perfect roadmap to every single
moral question you can dream up? I don't get it.
I don't think Pirsig does anything to tell me how to follow my path. I
think he tells a very good story about his own path and that story has
helped me along mine. How can anybody "clarify moral issues" for me except
myself? What are you really seeking that you say Pirsig lacks?
>
>Your seem rather glib when you talk about "the brand new me in this moment
>doesn't take
>any responsibility for the old me's promises." Try telling that to the
>Judge when the person
>your old me promised takes you to court!
Yeah that scene passed through my mind as I wrote the phrase. It was glib
and obviously a bit tounge in cheek. But also more sincere than you know.
I probably will have to explain it to a judge someday. The decisions the
old me made affect the new me all the time. It was somewhat in context of
playing with the term "me" that I was expounding on the issue, because I've
been wrestling here with issues of selfdom and free will and mind.
And shucks, lots of stuff I just throw out to see if I like the looks of it
in print. I don't do as much deep thinking about what I'm writing as I'm
writing it. I'm sorta of the "let it flow" school of thought and I have to
warn y'all to get used to sometimes overhasty judgement probably. heck ya.
I wonder a bit at what we do here... it seems to me that we should pay
attention to the quality of our intercourse - for that's the whole purpose,
is it not? Aren't we somewhat sitting in a class room with a question
before us? What is Quality in written expression and thought? The class
is in an uproar. Nobody knows. Not even the teacher. But we find all
this creative energy in just asking the question and we enjoy the fruits of
the exploration when we share them with each other. I'd rather write a
post that is interesting and easy to read than I would something very
carefully wordedly perfectly correct - but boring and dry. I guess I got a
sneaking admiration for really good sophistry that is sorta degenerate.
But anyway, that's more of my drive than being completely in tune with the
Gospel according to Phaedrus, truth to tell. Or rather I believe it's the
heart of the Gospel according to Phaedrus. As you try and produce quality
and observe quality and discuss quality you come into a relationship with
quality and you get more of it in your life. Here, there everywhere. I
enjoy the quality I find here on this forum and I'm willing to share my
attempts along with others. I'm also willing to hear criticism and advice
so if I'm wandering too much or getting wordy without really getting to the
poing ... like right now for instance. I'd be glad to hear how I can make
this a better quality experience for you.
Uhhh... back to your words now.
Try reading the brief quote from 'Dark Nature' again
>slowly, then re-read my bit about agency. New York is not a biological
>organism, it cannot
>think and it cares nothing for anything because only agents care. We can
>talk about the
>'qualities' that define New York, as Pirsig does, but this is where his
>use of 'quality' goes
>awry. He uses the word in too many ways, while denying it can be defined,
>yet equating it
>with several different things. It's all very confusing. I'm arguing that
>the quality that equates to
>morality only makes sense in agents, not in collections of things such as
>cities.
aha. The secret of agency is out. It must be a biological entity. A
human body is made of biological cells and a city is made up of biological
humans. What is the difference?
Well one big difference is the humans have free will. The cells do not.
The humans express individuality in myriad choices that sometimes conflict,
while the cell operates in perfect harmony and contribute to the sustenance
of a living being with a will.
Whereas a city is the product of those human wills in co-operation. Right?
That's simple enough to understand and a definition we all can agree with.
There's a big difference between a city and person.
However... RMP offered a slightly different definition that does indeed
open up my eyes to the patterns of value that created the city and in
return the to patterns of value that create myself. His analogy or
comparison "doesn't make sense" if you approach it from a very constrained
logical attitude, but from a more poetic frame of reference it makes a lot
of sense indeed. Cities are like big organisms and the humans are their
cells. All this is only an analogy, ya know. Everything is only an
analogy.
>May I expand a little on my understanding of self and free will. What
>makes a >self is the ability to plan for the future, in which I might just
>meet you >again. In interacting with other "calculating beings", I (my
>self) am an object >to them, as they are objects to me. (Please no howls
>of SOM anguish.)
ARGHHH. sorry, couldn't help it.
>But I know well that how I treat them is likely to rebound. I can make
>promises and break them, and if we meet again there will be consequences
>for >'me', even if I tell them that the new 'me' is quite different, they
>are likely >to assume that a punch on the nose could improve the chances
>for 'my' >delivering on my next promise. Do you see? The objectification
>(if that's the >word) that occurs allows for the building of social
>structures, moral >strictures, the Law, and so on.
Yes I do indeed see. I see it all around me and thus have I been trained
all my life long to view reality in exactly the way you describe so
clearly. Cause and effect, subjects and objects, actions and consequences
and life is just a mechanistic unfolding of the patterns inherent in the
rules o'LAW. I know the the litany but the tune don't make me dance.
The only promise I can make is that I'll probably break most of my
promises, but even that's not guaranteed.
>Free will is in the "calculating". Because all future calculation is
>fantasy, >it is my extrapolation from past experience and may well be
>wrong. Indeed, when >dealing with people it usually is, to some extent.
Yup, my point exactly. Except free will is more than calculating. There
are factors the human mind weighs that don't come into consciousness, that
can't be tallied on the ole cause and effect balance sheet. Sometimes
these factors are counter productive and sometimes these unknowns are
exactly the unconscious pull of DQ that we didn't know existed. And there
is no majic formula that tells you the difference. Time tells. Humans
wander in darkness.
> But only to some extent. On balance it makes good survival sense to act as
>though the person I am interacting with is likely to respond in reasonably
>>predictable ways. Part of that prediction is assigning to the other
>person >similar needs and wants to those I find in me. Again this is
>fantasy, but if >this is usually right, in evolutionary terms it will
>shape behaviour. So the >result of the evolution of complex societies has
>been in time to create
>selves and others, useful concepts in keeping my nose unbloodied. Lyell
>Watson >points out that for chimpanzees and gorillas the biggest threat to
>their well >being is not starvation or predation, but other chimps and
>gorillas. This might >be true for us, too. So when I assign certain
>qualities to another person and >act in accordance with that prediction,
>and in so doing I improve my survival >prospects, there is a lot of value
>in that behaviour, from an evolutionary
>perspective. Keep in mind, too, that this behaviour was refined in quite
>small >groups where most individuals had ongoing relationships, and that
>this remains >true for most people.
Granted. And if all there was to people was enlightened self interest and
self-protection then there wouldn't be much more to say on the subject.
However the intellect is a scarey and powerful force that drives people to
do things against their basic self interest in search of truth or beauty or
the holy grail of whatever grabs its fancy, and it's these flights of
non-self seeking that drive the society and the race forward. The mundane
truths of the jungle are easy to comprehend, but not that interesting to
contemplate. What is interesting to contemplate is the wierd and
unpredictable questions. Where do hypothesis come from? Then get on that
sled and ride it right over the cliff. I can keep my nose
unbloodied by staying home.
>Mystics quite rightly complain that the fantasy that goes into the
>creation of >self and others often gets in the way of reality. Therapists
>see it as >'projection', and so on, and equally decry the outcomes. So the
>issue becomes >"Is the whole of evolution therefore a movement away from
>perfection? Are all >our ambitions for more intelligence and more delicate
>perception and awareness >misconceived? Or is regression [as in mystical
>experience] the error? Is the
>mystical state, or Nirvana, a rejection of all that evolution has achieved
>in >two thousand million years? Or can we have the best of both worlds?"
>(Gordon >Rattray Taylor, The Natural History of the Mind, p111) Like
>Taylor, I regard >mysticism as "a rejection of the whole great process of
>encephalisaton to which >evolution has been devoted." Like him, I don't
>know the answer to his >questions, but I would like to try for the best of
>both worlds.
Why? Why not simply devote as much time as possible to the satisfactions
of creature comforts and avoiding unpleasant strivings and conflicts?
As to mysticism, I myself don't know what to say. Not many stories of
mystical experience have ever touched me with any feeling of authenticity
so I guess I'm cynically prejudiced. Maybe the mystic has touched a
reality I can't comprehend, but what good does it do me or him? You can
achieve just as much nirvana on LSD I suppose, although I've never
experienced that either. And it's undoubtedly a lot of fun. But in the
end you have to live on the earth and bake your bread and keep your nose
unbloodied, eh?
>No John, I don't feel anything you have said particularly inflammatory.
Well I'm glad of that. I would rather stay away from the kind of ego wars
that sprout up when personal feelings become strong and I'd hate to
engender those feelings in others. But on the other hand, I'd hate even
more to be boring. I am passionate about the word shared in pursuit of
intellectual excellence, and anything that detracts from that is 'bad' in
my book.
>I wonder at your self image when you speak in terms of "criticism of the
>artist >by the rabble".
Ah well that was more of a rhetorical flourish than aimed specifically at
you. And sort of a feeling of bad quality I get whenever I read posts that
seem to delight in just negative criticism of the object of our discussion.
It can be valid and right investigation of deep themes, and it can be silly
and vain self aggrandizement. How to tell the difference is the same ole
question we ask of Zuni Shaman the world over.
>I have more self respect than to consider myself 'rabble'. You wear that
>>description if it fits.
Oh it certainly does. I don't think you could get any rabbler than moi. I
would never be so crass as to hurl an epithet upon another that I'd mind
wearing myself. Besides it wasn't directed directly at you but at a
tendency in general that bugs me and you just offered a small
instantiation. But I'm glad you have lots of self respect and such things
cannot bother you. Such was my hope.
>I'm a fellow artist with Pirsig. He is not my guru, though that seems to
>upset >some people on this forum.
Ah well, what great artist is ever fully appreciated? Comfort yourself.
>Finally, in your other post you make much of "the path to Dynamic Quality
>is through self denial." Where is the self denial in enjoying a song on
>the radio? You've got it badly wrong here. Do I smell an unreconstructed
>puritan conscience behind your "I'm a lazy westerner I am"?
>
>John B
The self denial in enjoying a good song on the radio is in the creation of
that song - where the artist had to spend a good deal of his or her life
sacrificing ease and sustenance to practice his or her instrument, and hone
their craft, and explore the music in themselves. A true artist can tell
you more of a sort of zone where self is forgotten and this is what
produces the art that we truly enjoy.
And I imagine the smell you smell is something a lot more degenerate than
puritan. *I* wouldn't ever produce anything worthy of listening, I'm too
comfortable wallowing in the simple pleasures of my existence to sacrifice
my time and energy to create anything of lasting quality.
jc
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:38 BST