Thanks, oisin. Sorry for the length of this thing, I
didn't have time to make it shorter (-Twain).
> I don't fully accept the levels either, but because
> of what I perceive to be
> an oversimplification of its hierarchy.
Yes, "oversimplification" is unavoidaable when you use
language, especially in light of DQ. Language always
invokes SOM (this is my thesis for this email, and I
will try to prove it below). Anytime you use words,
you oversimplify. By definition, words "limit." If I
say "tree" then I am excluding the rest of the world.
Using words invokes "SadoObjectMasochism", and I mean
that joke seriously. As soon as I use a "word", I am
wrong. What sense of "tree" am I talking about when I
use the word "tree?" I have to then proceed to define,
refine, and struggle to get closer to what I mean by
tree. I have to "delimit" the use of the word, "tree."
Now, that is masochism to me, and let's not even talk
about the "sadism" I can create with the word
"haughty".
So, Pirsig has to invoke SOM in describing DQ because
words are "objects." He can't throw it away. By using
"words" that is the levels, he invokes or incants SOM
again. He is in a double bind. Now, other philosophers
have dealt with this problem. Derrida solves this by
using a technique borrowed from Husserl/Heidegger of
"erasing" the SOM of words as he uses them. Husserl
would "bracket" words, while Heidegger would "cross
out" words. Derrida of course "deconstructs" words. So
my use of "SadoObjectMasochism" is a deconstruction of
the word "SubjectObjectMetaphysics" an attempt to get
"beyond" SOM itself, an attempt to "delimit" SOM.
I think this is a critical mistake of Pirsig. Language
lives in the world of SOM. You can't have your cake
(get rid of SOM) and eat it too (use SOM in describing
your elimination of SOM). The previous sentence is a
child of Aristotlean logics, it's either this or that.
I believe mutually exclusive objects can co-exist, and
in fact would seem to be a quality of "Quality." But I
don't see a system offered by Pirsig where he can talk
of Quality without invoking SOM. That is why we get
these "oversimplified" levels, and that is why I have
a problem with it. That is why I invoke these
philosophers (none of whom are obscure, Heidegger
"BEING" the greatest philosopher of the 20th century).
By the way, in LILA, Pirsig clearly says his ideas
rest on the shoulders of the past philosophers, so I'm
merely giving the rest of the story of LILA, or at
least trying to investigate it. He clearly labels
William James (brother of Henry) as helping him with
the ideas of "radical empiricism" and "pragmatism."
Nietzsche, who wrote in the 19th century, has been
clearly labelled by other philosophers as the last SOM
philosopher, so Pirsig is NOT original on the death of
SOM. Pirsig is unique in giving a well crafted story
of the spirit of 20th century philosophy (ZAMM), but
it is hard for me to pinpoint "where" he is original.
I'm sure he is, but I can't taste it yet.
>For example,
> religion seems to get
> shoved into the 'Social' level.
That's an expression of a flaw of this "evolution" and
"hierarchy" organization of information. Ayn Rand
wrote of this, she was very sceptical of "hierarchies"
because you have an implicit faith in the higher
things and you don't question the lower things.
> (I
> notice too sometimes, that
> some people who claim to be above and beyond
> religion/social patterns have a
> blind spot, and harbour values and judgements which
> cannot be derived from
> Intellect alone, yet they use Intellect to
> rationalise their values as if
> they were.)
I think this is where the biology of mammals can
explain things. We all have imprinted behaviors that
we learn from our childhood. They can shift into many
realms: my imprinted behavior is intellectualism. It's
not better or worse than the religious zealot.
Nietzsche would say to, first, get self awareness of
these patterns, and then overcome it daily (very much
an SOM sort of thing, "get power over objects"). You
can't permanently get rid of it because you are a
mammal. Heidegger would say to turn to it, and release
it from your "objectification" mode (very much like
Pirsig I think). Again, Heidegger is "after"
Nietzsche.
> Since Society is right at the crux of what in SOM is
> regarded as the split
> between subjects and objects, this would gel with
> the continuing friction
> about 'social sciences', economics, ideology etc. in
> our SOM based
> civilisation perhaps?
Wittgenstein (a top 10 20th century philosopher) tried
to do this, use logic to explain away problems
(Tractatus Logico-philosophicus). The spirit of Pirsig
seems the same. "Adopt MOQ" and all your problems will
melt away. Make this one shift in thought (everything
is Quality) and then use logic to resolve the world's
problems. It doesn't work, and Wittgenstein rejected
his book later in life and adopted a much more common
sense approach towards problems. William Barrett wrote
a whole book about it "Illusion of Technique." He
talks about Wittgenstein, Heidegger, and surprise,
William James, who Pirsig relies on. My thought is
"Illusion of Technique" is some sort of counterpoint
or brother book of LILA. Barrett also wrote
"Irrational Man" which is famous for introducing
existentialism to the West. It will help with LILA I
think if anyone is interested (it covers Kierkegaard,
Heidegger, and Sartre). He's an easy read too.
> Also, would it be more helpful to think of the
> levels as 'sets', as in
> mathematics?
It helps a little to think of "sets" but as described
above I think something more radical is needed like
"erasure" "crossing out" "bracketing" etc. of words.
>These can overlap too, and contain each
> other. I have to
> constantly remind myself when speaking of 'levels'
> that I am _all_ of them,
Previously my point. Why do you remind yourself?
Because words fail. Words LIMIT. That's why you can't
use words with MOQ, in my opinion. You need something
beyond words. Other philosophers have done so why not
Pirsig???
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
NEW from Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1
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 - 16:01:33 BST