John,
Well said. I think Wittgenstein again can help here
and draw out Pirsig's stance of the need for both DQ
and sq (my feeling is "DQ" in capitals is the source
of the problem, which makes the sq seem inferior).
Remember, Wittgenstein is 2 philosophies in one: early
and late. Wittgenstein's early philosophy was the
"picture theory." Basically, anytime you interact with
the world, you form a picture, and that picture
corresponds with the real thing. What does that mean?
If I talk to a stranger, say a beautiful blonde, I
don't talk to her at first, I talk to a "picture" of
her in my mind. That "picture" is necessary in order
to use logic. When you have no "experience" of someone
you have to use logic with them because it is the only
way to understand them. Early Witt. thought that the
picture theory covered everything, and that if you
can't picture it, you can't talk about it. So morality
was never talked about because you can't picture it.
In Pirsig, this early Witt. would be like the static
quality, not just intellectual patterns.
Of course, Witt. then rejected this picture theory and
came up with a second theory, or late Witt. In late
Witt., his famous dictum became "don't think look."
"Thinking" involves the picturing of things and does
not deal with Kant's "thing in themselves". If I get
to know the beautiful blonde, I'll have direct
experiences with her and I won't need the picture of
her in my mind to interact with her. This is the
direct experience aspect of DQ I think, so DQ would be
late Wittgenstein. Pirsig addresses this point i think
when he has sex with LILA and says he wants to both be
an intellectual and have mindless sex. The "picture"
of LILA in his mind is bad (she's essentially a ditz)
but that does not mean she can't be a great "thing in
itself." Thus, he can have contradictory notions about
LILA at the same time (an early Witt. thought (ditz)
and a late Witt. thought (sex) at the same time).
Wittgenstein said "philosophy is the fight against the
bewitchment of our minds by language." And this is
where Pirsig comes in and I agree with your
assessment. We can't just walk in nature. We have to
work against this "bewitchment." How? I think Pirsig
would say through the MOQ. That is, if you change your
intellectual view or metaphysics, you can get to DQ/sq
balance without meditation et al. Derrida tries for
the same goal but he uses "language" instead of a
metaphysical system. I'm still trying to decide which
"corrective lens" is better. Change your language or
change your metaphysics? Or is it all the same? I
don't know. But Derrida/Wittgenstein/Pirsig are birds
of a feather. Flock them.
In sum, I agree with you, and just wanted to supply
some other references to frame your argument.
Angus
--- John Beasley <beasley@austarnet.com.au> wrote:
> Platt, Marco, Squonk, Sriram and others,
>
> PLATT: "It's my contention that to enter the
> "transpersonal domain," become
> spiritually awakened or experience "oneness" you
> don't have read books by
> Ken Wilber, attend lectures by Deepak Chopra or
> spend several months at a
> monastery in Tibet, but simply go to your local
> museum, symphony hall or
> trout stream where Beauty is likely to be found if
> you can't discover it in
> your own back yard.
>
> I also believe there is no greater calling in life
> than to create beautiful
> things. Which is why, long after the politicians are
> gone and forgotten,
> the artists and their works will be preserved and
> revered. I consider
> Pirsig to be a first rate artist. I'm drawn to the
> MOQ again and again
> because of its wonderfully lucid, harmonious and
> elegant intellectual
> pattern, especially compared to the degenerate,
> postmodern, anti-
> rational rubbish being propagated by humanties
> professors at today's
> universities."
>
> SQUONK: "Go out into the field and lay down on the
> ground. Look at the sky
> and stop thinking."
>
> KEATS: (Some time ago in another forum) "'Beauty is
> truth, truth beauty'.
> That is all ... ye need to know..."
>
> I am responding to this current thread in discussion
> not so much because I
> am totally at odds with it - I am, after all, an
> artist - but because it is,
> IMHO, so pathetically inadequate to deal with my
> issues and concerns.
> Because it is a half truth, and has been around a
> long while, and because
> there is indeed a lot of "anti-rational rubbish
> being propagated by
> humanities professors at today's universities", it
> sounds good, but it does
> not deliver. If it were true, Pirsig would not have
> written his books, and
> this forum would not exist. Instead he would be
> still laying out there in
> the field, staring at the sun. Or more probably,
> still be at Benares Hindu
> University.
>
> Fundamentlly, this is the "quality meats"
> understanding of quality, which
> Pirsig rejects. Quality equals beauty, especially
> natural beauty. This is a
> religious attitude which influences many in our
> culture, but it should not
> be confused with Pirsig's MOQ.
>
> Aubrey Menen, in his introduction to his book 'The
> New Mystics', says "The
> honest sort of Indian mystic has something very
> simple to say. He knows a
> way of putting our minds to rest without resorting
> to drink, or drugs, or a
> crack over the head with a hammer. It is a way of
> stopping you thinking. It
> has no appeal to people whose worry is that they
> never seem to have started:
> but more intelligent people do often feel that they
> need a holiday from
> their own minds, while leaving them intact to come
> home to when the holiday
> is over. That is all Indian mysticism is about, but,
> as I shall show in this
> book, it is quite enough. In fact, it is one of the
> most revolutionary iseas
> in the history of civilization. ... I aim to provide
> the Western enquirer,
> sceptic or not, with the means to distinguish the
> charlatan, whose aim is to
> deceive him, from the honest teacher, whose only
> object is to help."
>
> Why should I need help, if all I need to do is go to
> a concert or lie in a
> field? Because however pleasant it might be to
> experience these sources of
> quality (note the small q), such experiences do not
> for most people bring
> any great sense of oneness, nor answer their very
> real problems about moral
> and other issues. Nor does it produce a metaphysics,
> though I am not so
> concerned by that. It is a travesty of the MOQ, (and
> this must be the first
> time I have felt the need to defend that on this
> forum). It certainly
> confuses Dynamic Quality with appreciation of
> beauty, and to my mind that's
> quite a feat. (Show me where Pirsig recommends a
> walk through the art
> gallery as a way of resolving his issues with
> Western society.) And
> fundamentally, while such experiences may well point
> us to a 'oneness' at
> the core of things, I cannot recollect any reports
> of mystic transformation
> occurring while looking at the sunset. As Platt at
> least well knows, Wilber
> argues that the only way to that outcome is through
> adopting a
> transformative praxis. Either Wilber and Menen and
> Pirsig are simply wrong,
> and there is no such 'state' as the mystics speak
> of, or, if the 'lay in the
> field' theory is correct, such a state is actually
> no different to enjoying
> a good meal.
>
> Have you ever noticed how unpleasant people who
> cultivate beauty can be?
> Gardeners, artists, and musicians are often enough
> bitchy, bigoted and
> paranoid types, which is one reason their societies
> are so often hotbeds of
> intrigue and personal vendetta. (Sure, I am
> exaggerating, but just try
> joining your local orchid or arts society, before
> lambasting me too
> heavily.) The point I am making is that an
> appreciation of beauty does not
> lead inevitably to a better way of working on the
> motorcycle that is me. Nor
> does looking at and smelling the roses do anything
> about injustice, cruelty
> or oppression.
>
> Having said all that, I want to again make clear
> that I am not opposed to
> lying in fields, which is why I often sit on the
> hill at night, or go
> bushwalking with friends. Nor am I opposed to
> creating works of art, which
> is why I spent yesterday moving six tonnes of
> sculpted marble to a hilltop
> in a nearby town, where it may well outlast all our
> politicians, or indeed
> the human race. Nor do I have anything against
> stopping thinking, which is
> why I meditate most days. It's just that I find
> exhortations to do these
> things crass and shallow.
>
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find a job, post your resume.
http://careers.yahoo.com
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 - 16:01:37 BST