Hi Denis,
Yeah, I love that Mayakovsky's quote on art.
But back to the serious stuff ;-)
V:
<snip>
> >The "Wetness"of the kiss is important as are other factors in the
> situation,
> >for example, a "wet" kiss delivered by a cute girl you like has a
different
> >value to a wet kiss from a slobbering german shepard with bad breath, no?
D:
> Exact, the cute girl kiss has biological value (for the reproductive 'sex
> drive' instinct of the body) and social value (but what a cold term ! I'd
> prefer emotional value... :), while the dog's kiss only has emotional
value
> (in the best case, we share empathy, but nothing else). But one shouldn't
> ignore that in each case, spit is exchanged. Value is multidimentional :
by
> initiating physical contact, I exchange an emotional and biological
message,
> and every stage can be judged according to its level.
V:
What you are saying here is simply that we make judgments in keeping with
our accumulated static patterns.
But the Value that Pirsig talks about is that of the DQ which is at "the
cutting edge of reality", before the appraisal made with emotional,
biological and intellectual static patterns of value.
D:
<snip>
> Well, if I understand you, you're saying that everything we perceive
> conceptually
>is deduced from a positive/negative experience (the classic MOQ
> credo) that we call Value.
>Then, and only then are the other objective
> and/or subjective characteristics deduced from that appreciation, that
> primary perception. My objection is that this 'primary perception' isn't
> primary. It involves two apects : the perception, and the judgment. In my
> view, the non-dual perception comes before judgment. We perceive Value
> before we call it Good or Bad. Good/Bad is only one dimension of Value,
and
> other dimensions are NOT deduced from it, but are an integral part of
> non-dual perception. If I stroke some bark, or felt, the roughness or
> softness isn't deduced from 'valuing' or not the experience. I can like
it,
> and I can dislike it (since neither are biologically disruptive like my
> previous examples), but the sensation stays the same, and is interpreted
in
> the same way.
>
> One could understand that good/bad is secondary, but that's not what I'm
> saying either. I don't pass good/bad judgment "in my head", the
> positive/negative value is inside all along, but so are the physical
> characteristics. They are facets of the same jewel, if you prefer.
Different
> angles of the truth. Pirsig is destroying this beautiful complexity by
> forcing everything into ethics.
V:
The positive/negative value is inside where?
Didn't Pirsig always claim that Q is neither in the object or the mind, but
in the meeting of the two; in the experience.
The judgement, if you like, is in this Q event. IMO, what *you're*
describing
are the properties of the object which are intellectually/biologically
surmised by our 5 senses.
i.e. The roughness of the texture of the bark is due to it's inorganic spov
but the *Value* of the stroking is the DQ event.
I think it's similar to when someone has an intuitive negative or positive
feeling ("gut feeling") to an experience.
They are registering the value preintellect, while the properties of the
experience may or may not appear to go against it's sense of value.
For example, have you noticed how children may have certain feelings for a
person that are totally in opposition to what that person appears to be.
BTW, that strong and clear sense of value that children appear to have an
abundance of, is often lost through spov instilled by parents, teachers and
society that work to make it seem illogical nonsense and not "real".
D:
> Evolution is going toward 'betterness', but Pirsig is equating every part
of
> it with Goodness, without explaining HOW exactly can this goodness be
> perceived. This is the source of a long list of recriminations from
members
> of this forum and its sister one : Pirsig tells us we are free when
> following DQ without explaining *how* you follow DQ. Well, here's a tip :
do
> not follow anything that gives simple answers. Value isn't
one-dimentional.
V:
I don't think Pirsig was writing a self help book.
How can following DQ be explained in words, even the Tao that
you speak of, does not come with a step by step guide.
IMO, one must be open and aware that century long chains of SPoV influence
you. These SPoV's may have not been of greatest quality (or the best
"truths"), and to follow them may not be the best path to follow. Deciding
to overcome or challenge the static patterns is the real issue. The hard
part is to wrangle oneself from the static confines that are of poor
quality, and build on those that aren't.
Knowing that DQ is there to be followed is rather comforting (I still equate
DQ with the mystical and divine)
D:
>
> The worst thing Pirsig ever wrote, I believe, is this : "The Metaphysics
of
> Quality says that if moral judgments are essentially assertions of value
and
> if value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral
judgments
> are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world." (Lila, Chp. 12)
>
> The sophism, I believe, is obvious. The difference between value and
> 'assertions of value' is ignored. Therefore, BAM ! Everything falls back
> into ethics, the "rational morality" aberration is born, and a depressing
> list of MOQ justifications can be invented for any act, no matter how
> heinous...
>
> [snip]
> >> I think in his quest to understand the origins and importance of
morals,
> >> Pirsig ignored the fact that value is multidimentional, and that when
> your
> >> rubb your hand across a surface, the good/bad feeling isn't the only
> >> information that reaches you. You also get a feeling of its texture,
for
> >> one. That didn't fit in his "Quality" scheme, so he ignored it, but it
> >> doesn't mean we should do the same.
> >
> >But I don't think he did ignore it, in SODaV, he states that:
> >"In the third box are biological senses: senses of touch, sight, hearing,
> >smell and taste.
> >The MoQ follows the empirical tradition here in saying that the senses
are
> >the starting point of reality (see ;-)
> >but all importantly it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena,
to
> >ignore them is to misread the world.....this primary sense is a kind of
> gate
> >keeper for everything else an infant learns...."
> >So he is not trying to ignore the importance of the information the other
> >senses acquire, he is reiterating the presence and importance of a sense
of
> >Value!
>
> He does a very good job of telling us how we were trained to ignore the
> 'subjective' side of reality, this I agree with.
> My problem, as I'll state once more, is that he (in ZAMM) equates Quality
> with the Tao, and then in the MOQ slap it back into the Good/Bad divide.
The
> Tao is beyond good and evil, beyond morals, beyond everything. Saying
> Quality (or Value) is the force 'behind' the concepts of Beauty, Truth and
> Goodness is OK, but saying it is *only* Goodness ignores the depths of the
> Tao.
V:
IMO the Tao is very much about goodness.
In Lila, the Tao-like Quality of ZAMM, was divided into static and Dynamic
quality in order to make sense of questions that could not be answered by
Quality alone, and I think it accomplished this.
So that DQ became the indefinable/the all pervading/the Tao.
I would say that Beauty and Truth are *born* of Quality.
Mind you, sometimes I feel as if people are playing word games, and the real
feel to the MoQ gets lost.
D:
> It creates all kind of nasty confusions for those who haven't (and
> cannot, for lack of any indication how) experienced the Dharmakaya light
> (where distinctions are dissolved into pure Quality).
V:
I think very few people are prepared to sacrifice enough to attain that
state, but most importantly, very few would be able to handle it without
tipping over into "insanity".
D:
> It does to morals what Pirsig hated about esthetics : it kills Goodness by
> making it the subject of Reason.
>
> Pirsig thought Goodness was 'before' Truth and Reason and historically, he
> is right. But as he stated in ZAMM, "at the time of the Greeks, arete and
> social status were equivalent". Clearly not what we need now.
>
> What we need now isn't Goodness 'before' Truth and Reason, but Goodness
> 'beyond' Truth and Reason : in other words, the vaunted 'Fifth level'.
>
> [snip]
> >> This world is chaotic. You don't survive in it because you follow a
> system,
> >> even one based on Quality, but because you follow Quality itself. John
is
> >> right, it's the path that's important, not the destination.
> >
V:
> >Yes, to follow Quality is by far the most noble path to take.
> >But I thought that's what Pirsig was saying?!
>
D:
> In ZAMM, yes. Then he gave us a catechism (even though he warned us about
> it).
V:
Unfortunately, it's been a while since I have read both books all the way
through, and I should go through them again to see if I'm missing something
(as well as for the pure enjoyment).
But it seems that you are complaining that Pirsig has not adequately
outlined steps on how to follow DQ (and reach Nirvana?), and in the same
breath, saying that he has made the MoQ too methodical.
But having said that, I have to admit that when I started to ponder on Lila,
it was rather depressing because it made a lot of sense but seemed to lack
soul. But I find that my feelings toward it
keep changing. It has cleared a few things up for me but left much
unanswered, which is OK. I didn't expect to find the answer to all things in
it, nor, I dare say, did Pirsig intend it to be.
BTW, I apologize if I haven't addressed all of your issues but time seems to
be limited these days.
Victoria
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:01:28 BST