Diana, Platt and all: I've been following your conversation and find it
very interesting. If I may say, it seems Diana is trying to be pretty
specific while Platt is taking a broad view and I think that's the source of
your apparent disagreements. Anyway, I'll try to be specific first and move
to the big picture. You know, intellectual truth and then mystic truth....
I think Diana was quite right a while back when she pointed out that Pirsig
was talking specifically about the differences between SOM and the MOQ.
Clearly both of these metaphysical systems are at the intellectual level.
And so its "true" that is talking about "truth" at that level. And while its
very important to recognize that his thoughts on the matter almost
certainly will have wider implications and apply reasonable to other areas
of his philosophy, I think its also important to notice what he's saying
about SOM and the MOQ specifically. Here's the quote again...
"If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're
permitted only one construction of things-that which corresponds to the
'objective' world-and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or
excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more
than one set of truths to exist." (Lila, Chap. 8).
He makes the key assertion here; that there can be "more than one set of
truths". But notice that this postive assertion is an "if" propostion. There
can be more than one truth, IF Quality "is seen as the ultimate reality.
He's saying that the MOQ is different than SOM in precisely this respect.
He's making a negative assertion about SOM. He's saying it's limited. It
only allows "one construction of things". In a remarkably parallel criticism
of that same limited view, Ken Wilber puts it like this in a section called
THE DISASTER OF MODERNITY...
"But by the end of the eighteenth century, the rapid, indeed extraordianry
development of science began to throw the whole system off balance. The
advances in the it-domain (objective) began to eclipse, and then actally
DENY, the vales and truths of the I and the we (subjective) domains.
...empirical science, and science alone, could pronounce on ultimate
reality. Science, as we say, became scientism, which means it didn't just
pursue its own truths, it aggressively denied that there were any other
truths at all! "
And certainly mystic truth is one of the many truths that SOM denied. And
clearly mystic truth is all over the MOQ, it the heart and soul of the MOQ,
no? I think Pirsig says that he abandoned the classic/romantic split in
favor of the static/Dynamic split because only that latter can explain
mysticism. He thought of making his night in the teepee the center of his
book.
I think it's also important to recognize that SOM is flawed by it
limitations, but the MOQ does not return the favor by excluding SOM
altogether. I mean its a "construction of things" that the MOQ will allow,
among others. SOM is a set of truths too.
Thanks for your time, DMB
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 - 16:00:39 BST