Dear John and colleagues,
John, I don't often respond to your posts as our approaches at attempting to
understand MOQ are quite different. However, I have always respected your
viewpoint, and I believe that only when one fully appreciates another's
perspective, has he the rightful tools to challenge it. As you pointed out,
it is important to remember that the power of Pirsig's work is in its
experiential nature. Throughout both ZMM and LILA, Phaedrus is sometimes
right in his assertions and sometimes wrong in his assertions (and btw
sometimes right for the moment, but when later faced with a challenge,
realizes that his assertions are now wrong in view of this newly perceived
obstacle). It is truly within the spirit of Pirsig's writings that we
encourage different views as they may open our eyes to further understanding
of Quality. Zen is a derivative of the ancient belief in the Tao. The
principle of the Tao that is reiterated again and again throughout the
ancient writings is that change is inevitable, and should be embraced. John,
I welcome your comments and if they should challenge my thinking in such a
compelling way that I modify my beliefs, then I must embrace that new
understanding. It is inevitable.
Regarding any who would attempt to define Quality, let us not forget that
every time Phaedrus believes he has a handle on what Quality is, he hits a
"brick wall." Throughout the book, LILA, he, trapped in the paradigm of his
previous understanding, fails to see the immense Quality that is part and
parcel of the title character.
Regarding language, I believe the author William S. Burroughs said "language
is a virus from outer space." Rather, I would assert that language is one of
those rare elements that is almost the embodiment of Quality. It not only
transcends Objectivity, it has the power to eliminate it. I encourage any
who feel challenged by this statement to read the works of Rumi or e. e.
cummings.
Regards,
The Bard
----- Original Message -----
From: John Beasley <beasley@austarnet.com.au>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: MD Moral development
> Bo and others,
>
> BO: My "you never seem to get it right" quip was for John B.
>
> Bo, I appreciate that you have seized upon something in the MOQ that is
> 'right' for you, and possibly for some others. It may even be that this is
> what Pirsig was intending to convey to us all. But I am concerned that I
am
> receiving messages from you ( and Squonk) which in effect say "You're
wrong,
> go away."
>
> There are a few things I want to say in response. You say "....If Pirsig
> claims that SOM is wrong - and we declare that his ideas are valid - then
> the somish mind notion must go." First, SOM thought is not 'wrong', just
> inadequate. I think this is Pirsig's view, though I haven't taken the time
> to look up references. He certainly argues that there are varieties of
> metaphysics which we can choose between on the basis of the quality we
sense
> in each, just as we are free to choose artworks that appeal to us on the
> basis of their quality. I am choosing the ideas that appeal to me. If they
> upset you, as they appear to, it may be because we are viewing them from
> different perspectives, or if Wilber is right, from different levels. Each
> of us is of course prone to suspect that our own perspective or level is
> 'best', and so it is, for each of us at this moment, for we are not
> deliberately choosing a low quality option.
>
> Now there may also be a meta-valuation which asserts that apart from our
own
> sense of value, which Pirsig says is fundamental, there is a metaphysics
> which is 'better' than other metaphysics. In my opinion this understanding
> is dependant upon a Wilber-like view of things, and is not fundamentally
> consistent with a Pirsig-like view. Pirsig argues that we experience
> 'quality' directly, and that the static quality of a metaphysics is only
the
> statically latched residue of dynamic experiences of value which cannot be
> expresssed in words. There is no way, in a Pirsigian world, for a
> metaphysics (as a pattern of ideas) to take precedence over the dynamic
> experience of quality. When you tell me I am wrong, you imply that when I
> use what you see as SOM language or concepts that I am somehow perverting
> the truth according to Pirsig. I assert that I am in fact more attuned to
> Pirsig than you in this regard, in that I am responding to quality where I
> find it, whereas you are telling me that if I experience it or describe it
> in terms you judge outside the MOQ I must be wrong.
>
> I find a great deal of value in Wilber, and I am annoyed by your ad
hominen
> attacks on him as somehow New Age, and therefore discredited. I can assure
> you that most New Age people, if I can be allowed to generalise, are very
> unhappy with Wilber, who gives them a very hard time.
>
> The second point I wish to make is that all language is by its very nature
> from the SOM level. A noun is a word used to identify a discrete object or
> concept, etc (it 'refers to a person, place or thing', says my
dictionary).
> It implies boundedness. Nouns are constructs of our minds, which are
> themselves fashioned within our cultures and languages. This does not make
> them 'wrong', (after all, "Good is a noun"), but it is important to
exercise
> care with them. I loved the quote from Wittgenstein, 'philosophy is the
> fight against the bewitchment of minds by language', that Angus provided
> recently.
>
> This makes writing about 'quality' very difficult, in that Pirsig rightly
> asserts that the Quality he is talking about is unbounded, indefinable,
and
> hence not graspable in language. Actually, all language shares this
problem,
> but ignoring that for the moment, Pirsig is struggling with the same
problem
> experienced by mystics, (of which he may or may not be one,) which is to
> convey experience in words. As Wilber points out, the problem is not
> inherent in the words, but in the mismatch between different person's
> experience. Pirsig himself does not seem to have a clear position on
whether
> there is an ultimate quality to which we all make our varied ways, or if,
> rather, each of us finds a different quality that is in part shaped by our
> varied experiences, etc. Wilber is much clearer here. He argues that
quality
> is layered, organised holarchically, and that we all pass through similar
> stages in a direction that does tend towards increased depth and quality.
> Where Pirsig uses the word quality, Wilber would use consciousness, which
> seems to upset you, but I can't see why it should.
>
> Phaedrus, you say, "understood that the void is QUALITY. It's so easy to
> interprete this the way that everything is subjective/mind and that we"
> (with our minds) create reality ... the usual newage rubbish, but that is
> not the MoQ." I agree that this is not the MOQ. But neither is saying 'the
> void is quality'. All words act to point towards experience; in my
favourite
> analogy, words are fingers pointing to the moon. But the moon is not
> experienced only, or primarily, in words. They come later, the static
> latches provided by language and culture, which enable us to hold on to a
> residue of experience, and manipulate it to our advantage. But they can so
> easily bewitch us, and so I find my task is constantly to check what the
> words mean, and how well they resonate with my experience of quality. Now
if
> this is unacceptable behaviour on this forum, and does not fit your
version
> of the truth according to Pirsig, so be it. The words will always and
> unavoidably be SOM in style. Just accept that. But use your intelligence,
> which as Bohm points out, literally means to 'read between the lines', to
> look for the meaning and the fit with experience that is, against all the
> odds, conveyed by language. I often get the feeling with you that a word
> like 'consciousness' has been demonised. Step back a bit, and allow the
> ideas to emerge, if you can.
>
> And now for your CREDO! At last I have some idea of what you have been
> asserting for years, though not in a way I could take on board. It seems
to
> me you are saying that the intellectual level is inextricably
subject/object
> bound. So far so good. But you say more than this, vis "this value level
is
> merely the S/O DIVIDE". Now you lose me again. I am not sure what you are
> implying by using the word 'divide' to refer to the whole intellectual
> realm. If you are merely pointing to the inescapable subject/object nature
> of language, and intellect, as it has evolved with language (I agree with
> whoever has been suggesting that language is the 'machine language' that
> facilitates the emergence of the intellectual level), then I must agree.
> This is what I have also been stating above.
>
> But I go beyond you when I assert that language is not mired in
objectivity,
> but is actually able to transcend it, provided there is shared experience
> between those using the language. This becomes quite evident when you
> examine how each of us learns language. Helen Keller learned her first
word
> when her teacher held her hand under the tap and then tapped out on her
arm
> a code which became Keller's word 'water'. Even blind and deaf, she could
> link the experience with the symbol, and use it in future in novel
> situations. I wonder how long it took her to find that by tapping this
code
> she could get a drink of water? We read between the lines. And one way in
> which we do this is by reading Pirsig. How does one comprehend the MOQ,
> which purports not to be SOM bound. By reading between the SOM lines. By
> grasping the idea that resonates with my own experience of quality, which
is
> not divided between subjects and objects, but is prior to both.
>
> Pirsig asserts that the dynamic is not confined to the intellectual level,
> but transcends it. I agree. Is there then a level above the intellectual,
> which can form a static latch for the awareness that experience is not
> fundamentally divided in the way language seems to imply? Of course. It's
> been around for thousands of years, and Pirsig seems to have an ambivalent
> relationship to it, but to his credit he does not minimise it. It is what
is
> generally known as mysticism. It is, as Wilber asserts, thoroughly
> experiential, and as reality based as any science. It requires an
education
> over long periods of time to thoroughly grasp what it is about, as is true
> of any field of science. And while there are many disagreements over
detail,
> as also occurs in science, there is a broad concensus as to what is valid
> and what is not, and this wisdom resides in a community, which tests new
> formulations against the common wisdom, again something true of science.
>
> When you say it is "an illusion in which existence has been suspended ever
> since ...until Pirsig came along that is", you ignore this strong and
> durable tradition. Pirsig offers a particular westernised view of the
mystic
> understanding, but it is not novel, except in its phrasing. Many people
have
> attempted to make the transition from Eastern or religious versions of
> mysticism to a form which can be grasped by western, scientifically
oriented
> people, including Chogyam Trungpa, Jeremy Hayward, Aubrey Menen, John
> Wren-Lewis, Ken Wilber and Hameed Ali, to name just a few I am familiar
> with. Whitehead came close, though from the other direction.
>
> The error I sense to be quite common on this forum is to assume that the
> mystic level is somehow to be grasped intellectually rather than
> experientially. While there is actually no problem with discussing
non-dual
> mystic experience in Cartesian language, language is inadequate to convey
> the reality of the experience, in a way which is not true, for example,
when
> reading a motor-bike manual. This is one reason I am very suspicious of
> those who proclaim thay have the 'truth'. Of some levels of experience "I
> must needs be silent". When I actually quizzed members of this forum as to
> their mystic credentials a year or two ago, very few were prepared to say
> they were 'enlightened' (a word I hate, but it serves as code), though
some
> certainly spoke of experiences, often associated with drug use, that
> convinced them that there was another unified dimension to reality. I
> suspect this is close to Pirsig's position, too, though he remains
> ambivalent.
>
> Now I am quite clear that I have few mystic qualifications. I am less
> influenced by mystic experience than weary with intellectual experience,
and
> I have found that the reintegration of the body with the mind as practiced
> in, for example, Gestalt therapy, while helpful, does not go far enough.
> What has been invaluable for me, experientially, in doing Gestalt work,
has
> been the progression from novice to practitioner, where what was once
> doubted is now integrated and part of everyday reality. I suspect the same
> will be true of the path to mysticism, though it also appears a more
> difficult path, for reasons I will not go into here.
>
> Pirsig reminds us that the motorbike we work on is called 'myself', and
that
> is my first priority. I enjoy arguing on the internet, and it fits my
> personality. But at the end of the day, Pirsig's ideas are of value only
> insofar as they assist me to work on myself. That is why I often regret
that
> he wrote a metaphysics and not a workshop manual.
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:01:38 BST