Angus, Bo, Denis, Platt, Wim, and all,
Thanks Angus, for your positive and instructive response. I am really
appreciating my belated education about Wittgenstein which you are providing
so elegantly. I have made a special note of his words "philosophy is the
fight against the bewitchment of our minds by language." It is exactly what
I would have liked to say. I might add that Gestalt Therapy, at its best, is
very nearly the same thing. However I want to take issue with the next stage
of your argument.
ANGUS: "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 ..."
You might be right, but I am profoundly suspicious of
intellectual/mental/verbal transformations. They remind me of my father's
comment on an acquaintance who had been 'converted' at a Billy Graham
crusade. My father said something like "He was a mean old coot before, and
he's a mean old Christian now." Any transformation worth having would have
changed his behaviour as weel as his words.
You have quite clearly expressed the view that "Thinking" involves the
picturing of things and does not deal with Kant's "thing in themselves". I
totally agree. So how does a shift in thinking ("your intellectual view or
metaphysics") improve the contact with what is? You have lost me here. I
suspect this is where I part company with Platt, too. Is that right, Platt?
Indded, I suspect this is the main issue I have with Pirsig. My core
interest in in transformation, and the key question is "How might I find a
transformative path in a world where I experience cruelty, injustice, shame,
projection, and so on, as well as inspirational art and the beauty of
nature?" My experience suggests that changing my thinking may indeed have a
role, but only in the larger context of 'direct experience'. Pirsig is
complicated here, because at one level he is saying this, yet at another
level his saying it is inadequate as a praxis. I simply don't believe that
changing my thinking, even changing my thinking about how reality is
contacted, helps much to contact reality. It is a mental game, at worst.
Bo; If I understand you correctly you do share my concerns with the Giant. I
take your point that Pirsig as an author must have struggled with many
somewhat conflicting trains of thought, some of which were discarded, and
others not, like this thread on the Giant - which in my view should have
been. The link between the Giant and fascism is derived from Wilber's
analysis which I included in the previous post. (Also see my post of
2.11.01) Wilber points out that the evils of both Communism and Fascism
derive from a confusion of the larger social entity such as the city (or the
State or Motherland) with individuals, which are organisms with a subjective
consciousness. And as Pirsig points out, only individuals can respond to
dynamic quality. States and cities can't. Which is why when Pirsig says that
cities being 'higher organisms' are 'better' for devouring human bodies,
then I call foul. If this is not fascism, what is? It is also the
justification of the purges that accompanied communism in most societies
where it occurred. To build the perfect society, just get rid of all those
people we label imperfect. Shades of Hitler!
In fact, my accusation of fascism was levelled at the far more subtle
presentation in Lila Ch 22, which shares some affinities with the Giant, but
is a much more explicit disavowal of the values that the Indians have
contributed to western society, to allow for the technological functioning
of the city. The parallel is that the efficient functioning of the city is
held up as the higher good than the quality of life of its citizens. (Or,
more subtly, that having an efficient train service is of higher value than
having the right of freedom of speech - ever heard of Mussolini?)
I am really frustrated by the lack of response to this critique. If I am
wrong, show me where I misrepresent Pirsig. If I am right, I would
appreciate someone (apart from Bo) saying so. Or do we pass over such a
fundamental challenge to 'the master' in silence?
Re 'consciousness', I basically agree with Denis' response to your
criticism.
DENIS: "Pirsig surely did not meant it in this way, but since we already
have some people believing that humans who act on biological impulses should
be eliminated like germs... you do the math." You are too charitable to
Pirsig. Actually read Ch 22 and see what he says.
DENIS: ""Things", like cities, are often composed from more than just one
type of patterns. Cities, for example, consist of a location in space-time,
in which we can find inorganic infrastructures, which are used and
maintained by organisms (humans). These latter are governed by complex
behaviours, which are themselves regulated by customs and laws. These, in
turn, can be criticized by individuals, who will then try to make some
change in laws and customs, which will be enforced by biological acts (like
the use of force, if need be). Finally, those might then need to change the
inorganic infrastructures to adapt them to these new behaviours, etc."
You will be criticised for speaking SOM, (Wim, I really don't get the point
of your discriminating between patterns and things - can you elaborate?) but
you are quite correct in your analysis, as I see it. The levels of static
quality which Pirsig discriminates are a useful conceptual tool, but if they
are to have any ethical value, then they should impinge at the level of
complexity which your analysis demonstrates. When Pirsig talks about a city
as the Giant, he is in my view guilty of confusing all manner of patterns
and levels, to disastrous effect.
DENIS: "There is something deshumanizing in big cities ... You're not only
alone in your SOMish head, you're alone, period."
I very much agree. And it is my oft expressed belief that it is this
loneliness that is the poorly addressed subtext of Lila. When Pirsig says
that something is wrong in late twentieth century America, and you can sense
the low quality without being quite able to pin it down, I suggest that it
is this loneliness that he is addressing. He does make a few very explicit
comments about it, but seems to have no clue as to how this might be
overcome. Again, we get thoughts but no praxis.
I look forward with interest to your upcoming post.
Platt, I must defer responding to your interesting and stimulating post, as
I think it leads in a different direction. Hopefully I will be able to
respond soon.
Regards,
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 - 16:01:37 BST