Hey Glenn, Erin and all,
RICK
> > If he meant that we were 'blind' to those patterns without social
> >mediation I suspect he would have written something more like: "Which
> >inorganic patterns are observed and which are unobserved is decided by
> >social patterns of value."
>
GLENN
I'd be tempted to agree with you before I re-read the Dharmakaya quote, but
not now. That's a real smoking gun, don't you think?
RICK
Look at the Dharmakaya passage again....
PIRSIG
...he thought that the light was nothing more than involuntary widening of
the iris of the eyes of the observer that lets in extra light and makes
things look brighter, a kind of hallucinatory light produced by optic
stimulation, somewhat like the light that comes when one stares at something
too long. Like eye blinks, it's assumed to be an an [sic] irrelevant
interruption of what one "really" sees, or it's assumed to be a subjective
phenomenon, which is unreal...(p387-388).
RICK
This, I believe, is the real smoking gun. Clearly he feels that we all SEE
the Dharmakaya light. He's suggesting that our culture explains away the
light as 'irrelevant' or 'unreal'.... not that we're blind to it.
-----------------------------------------------
Now let me try this one more time...
>GLENN
>Suppose a physicist selects for study the decay rate of plutonium, and
she's
>funded by the government to build nuclear power plants. Clearly this is a
>selection made on the basis of a social pattern and Pirsig is correct about
>this.
>Suppose another physicist selects for study the radiation emitted from
>quasars. Obviously a social pattern is not the basis for this selection
>because there is no social gain to knowing anything about quasars, and
let's
>suppose he is funded to study anything he wants.
>
>RICK
>Ah... But a social pattern IS the basis for this selection, namely... the
>PHYSICIST!
GLENN
I considered this too, but rejected it... the key here is to find the kind
of pattern that the *selection* is most directly based on... If he has no
social pressures, he is free to choose the one that is most intellectually
stimulating. Anyway, that's my take, but obviously not Pirsig's.
RICK
I think you should consider how you're interpreting the word "basis".
We agree that the 'government' of the 1st example and the 'physicist' of the
2nd example are both social patterns. But you point out that in the 1st
example the *selection* of what to study is made for the social purpose of
building a power plant, while in the 2nd example the physicist's only drive
is intellectual stimulation. I think the problem is that you're reading the
word "basis" as if it meant "purpose".
The *selection* in your 1st example is made for a social purpose
(providing nuclear power), while in the 2nd it's made for intellectual
purpose (intellectual stimulation). But I would suggest that Pirsig is
using the word "basis" to mean "foundation". That is..." The *selection* of
which inorganic patterns to observe and which to ignore is made on the
[foundation] of social patterns of value...."
Animals don't make *selections* of things to study for ANY
purpose...that's because they have no social foundation to support
intellectual growth. Humans make such selections because we have a social
foundation, made up of physicists and governments and such, that can support
intellectual patterns like a "scientific description". And remember, that's
what the whole quote is about in the first place, "Our scientific
description [intellectual pattern] of nature [inorganic/biological patterns]
is always culturally [social pattern] derived."
Pirsig is saying that Intellectual patterns are related to Social
patterns the way a river is related to its bed. That's my reading anyway.
what do you think?
rick
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 - 16:01:54 BST