Hullo Andrea,
I enjoyed your thoughts on 'Man as the Measure', and agreed with many of
your sentiments. I had also forgotten that Pirsig uses this term in Ch 26 of
Lila: "Man is always the measure of all things, even in matters of space and
dimension."
I like to think of each person as a universe in themselves. While it is
probably true that there is a universe out there which includes each of us,
our primary experience is of our individual universe, a universe which we
co-create, and even while it does not obey our wishes and whims, it is
shaped far more by what we bring to it than we can imagine. Recent brain
research is quite incisive in this area, showing how much of our perception
is actually produced by us, not just reacting to some input from the
environment, as the behaviourists used to assert.
Jonathan, I think, raised the topic, but apart from acknowledging the brief
quote where Pirsig says "only a living being can do that", I found it hard
to follow his thoughts. I have real problems with Pirsig's understanding of
man, despite this quote and a few like it. ( eg "Phaedrus ... cause was the
Quality of his life" (Ch 22).)
Pirsig's limitations are most evident when he comes to discussion of the
Giant, and at times he gives the clear impression that the Giant is superior
to the men it consumes. "This city is a higher pattern than either a
substance or a biological pattern called man." "A higher organism is feeding
upon a lower one and accomplishing more by doing so than the lower organism
can accomplish alone".(Ch 17) Now perhaps he is only saying what he later
asserts: "biological man is exploited and devoured by social patterns that
are essentially hostile to his biological values." (Ch 21) However I doubt
this. He says that the Giant "worked with an intelligence of its own that
was way beyond the intelligence of any person." (Ch 17) And for Pirsig the
level of the intellect is supreme. The giant is "the cohesive force that
held all these systems together", that allowed the wiring of the city to be
fixed when needed, that located the person who knew how to fix it, and so
on. He quite specifically equates people with farmyard animals, the Giant
with the farmer who uses them for his benefit.
Perhaps its just a poor and confusing metaphor. Pirsig recognises the
dynamism of New York, and acknowledges he is now part of that Giant, and
concludes "The Giant could be very good to you, he thought ... If it wanted
to." (Ch 17) At the end of it all, I still have the sense that to Pirsig a
dynamic culture is more valuable than any individual, despite his extended
argument to the contrary. Does any one else have this view?
This, of course, flatly contradicts "And beyond that is an even more
compelling reason: societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no
more than sets of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves
perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that."
(pg. 185 Bantam paperback)" How can the Giant, "a higher organism", be good
to anyone, if it is only a set of static patterns? I must say I am totally
unable to fathom Pirsig at this point, unless he means that persons too are
only sets of static patterns. If that is indeed what he means, I cannot
agree. In fact I would view this as rediculous.
What I see Pirsig doing is sacrificing the values which can only emerge in
the individual subject, in a mistaken belief that the way to heal the
subject/object divide is somehow to denigrate subjects. And since the mystic
tradition is also inclined to malign the individual ego, it seems he has
some support there. Ken Wilber, though, argues differently.
"Transformative spirituality does not seek to bolster or legitimate any
present worldview at all, but rather to provide true authenticity by
shattering what the world takes as legitimate." This surely includes
Pirsig's metaphysics equally with subject/object metaphysics. He concludes
that, "in addition to offering authentic and radical transformation, we must
still be sensitive to, and caring of, the numerous beneficial modes of
lesser and translative practices. This more generous stance therefore calls
for an "integral approach" to overall transformation, an approach that
honours and incorporates many lesser transformative and translative
practices- covering the physical, emotional, mental, cultural and communal
aspects of the human being - in preparation for, and as an expression of,
the ultimate transformation into the always-already present state." (Taken
from 'A Spirituality that Transforms', available on the internet.) I find
this vision more hopeful and more inclusive than Pirsig's.
John B
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:22 BST