Hey Glenn and all,
(I've renamed this thread to better reflect its content--- hope nobody
minds)
GLENN
I'm tossing out my first interpretation that everyone biologically "sees"
the light but that its perception gets cognitively blocked by social
filters.
RICK
Don't toss it out Glenn, it may have some value yet...
GLENN
Here's what I currently think Pirsig means:
He says the light that causes the DO. effect is not special, supernatural
light, but just extra light that's let in by dilated irises (I think he
means pupils). I've had my pupils dilated with eye drops at the eye
doctors, and the edges of objects get fuzzy and the overall visual scene is
brighter. This is what Pirsig thinks is the D. light effect, and he may be
right. Most people's pupils do not dilate unless you move from a dark place
to a light place, and once acclimated to the light, stop dilating before the
D. effect can be seen. This is why the norm is to not see the effect.
RICK
First off, all poodles are dogs but all dogs are not poodles... Or in
this case, Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over dilated pupils, but all
extra light let in by over dilated pupils isn't Dharmakaya. Remember, to
Pirsig the D-light is the objective physical manifestation of a "dynamic
intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." Your experience with the eye
drops had nothing to do with Dynamic Quality. It did make you see extra
light, but by a different sort of cause. In other words, there are lots of
ways to see the light, but it's only Dharmakaya if the way was Dynamic
Quality.
But if I read you correctly, you're suggesting that Pirsig thinks that
much in the same way that there are some people who just run faster, some
who just jump higher and some who can sing on key, there are also some who
just happen to have pupils that tend to over dilate and let in extra light
and that that light is Dharmakaya (is that about right?).
This reading is very powerful in a sense. It seems to tie a Quality
phenomenon to an objective phenomenon with an entirely scientific
explanation. But as you point out, it raises some problems and
questions....
GLENN
If Pirsig's pupils dilate past the norm (over-dilate), the effect will take
place. Even for people like Pirsig, who see the effect, the D.light is
unpredictable. It comes and goes. Apparently his pupils don't always
over-dilate.
So now the question is, why do the pupils of a relatively small percentage
of the Western population sometimes over-dilate? Why do the pupils of
religious people of our past and people in other cultures over-dilate at
higher rates (he assumes this because there's a ton of literary and artistic
references to light in past religion and other cultures)? Why do the pupils
over-dilate when you take peyote or mescaline? Why do they over-dilate when
you are insane? Why does the effect come and go?
RICK
What's more is that Pirsig also says that most people dismiss the
D-light as either 'some objective but irrelevant phenomenon' or 'some
subjective and unreal phenomenon'. It's comments like these that had lead
us all to the 'cognitive filtering' interpretation in the first place. And
clearly this sort of 'filter' is explicitly referred to in the text.
The filter theory also fits with Pirsig's greater metaphysical points.
Pirsig is identifying a false-dilemma caused by the sociological assumption
of a subject/object dichotomy as an exhaustive metaphysical viewpoint. Any
cultural understanding that is generally limited to classifying everything
as either subjective/objective must classify the light as one or the other.
And Pirsig's answer is that the light is OBJECTIVE.
But to Pirsig the light is the objective physical manifestation of a
'dynamic intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." That is, it's an
objective manifestation of Dynamic Quality! And Dynamic Quality itself is
neither subjective nor objective. Therefore, any point of view generally
limited to describing everything as subjective or objective would have no
way to EXPLAIN the D-light since its cause (DQ) is unacknowledged in the
first place. Thus, any members of a culture mired in such a point of view
are left with describing the light as either 'objective' but unexplainable
and therefore irrelevant, or 'subjective' which, for all intents and
purposes, means it is imagined.
So how about we combine interpretations....
The D-light appears when DQ intrudes on SQ. The potential for seeing it
requires a biological condition of the pupil which amounts to a 'physical
predisposition' towards over dilation that only exists in a small percentage
of the population. Those of us without this attribute only get dilation with
changes in light. But those with it get all kinds of extra light, including
Dharmakaya, when it occurs in their presence (when DQ intrudes on SQ).
However, even of this small percentage that has the 'physical
predisposition' to see the D-light when it occurs, most of them don't
recognize it for what is because they have no mechanism for explaining DQ
itself. They dismiss the D-light as either 'objective' but unexplainable or
'subjective' because they don't have the right 'metaphysical predisposition'
(note that by 'metaphysical predisposition' I am actually referring to the
LACK of a general metaphysical predisposition to classify things as
subjective or objective).
GLENN
Pirsig thinks it's due to the culture being too objective. When you let go
of your objectivity your pupils dilate more than normal and you see the
light. When you become more objective, you build up static patterns, your
pupils close up more, and the D. effect goes away.
RICK
How about this... "When one who's pupils dilate more than normal lets go
of his objectivity he can see the D-light when Dynamic Quality intrudes on
static patterns in his presence." That is, to see the light one must have
BOTH the right 'physical' and 'metaphysical' predispositions. Anyone who
has the requisite dispositions can both SEE and RECOGNIZE the Dharmakaya
light.
This combination of 'physical' and 'metaphysical' predispositions would
explain why the ability is rare in general, and even rarer in some
particular cultures. It would also explain why many who seemingly have the
right 'metaphysical predisposition' can't see the light regardless of their
non-objectivity. It would also seem to suggest that one cannot even 'learn'
to see the light unless he is lucky enough to have been born with the right
'physical predisposition'.
Plus, we can now answer all of those questions you had:
(1) Even for people like Pirsig, who see the effect, the D.light is
unpredictable. It comes and goes. Apparently his pupils don't always
over-dilate.
---His pupils always over dilate but he doesn't always see D-light
because DQ isn't always intruding on SQ. He always sees ordinary extra
light, but not D-light.
(2) Why do the pupils of a relatively small percentage of the Western
population sometimes over-dilate?
---It's not only that a relatively small percentage of the WESTERN
population over dilates. It's that a relatively small percentage of the
TOTAL population over dilates. The western population has the same small
percentage of people with the 'physical predisposition' but far less with
the 'metaphysical predisposition'.
(3) Why do the pupils of religious people of our past and people in other
cultures over-dilate at higher rates (he assumes this because there's a ton
of literary and artistic references to light in past religion and other
cultures)?
---Same answer as #2. Religious people of the past and members of other
cultures have the same % of 'over dilators', but their 'over dilators' are
more likely to recognize the light when they see it.
(4) Why do the pupils over-dilate when you take peyote or mescaline?
---This is the most interesting one. Psychedelic drugs physically cause
pupils to over dilate (this is a well documented effect of drugs like Acid,
mescaline, peyote, etc). That is, they induce the 'physical predisposition'
and can allow those normally INCAPABLE of seeing the light the temporary
POTENTIAL to do so.
If you take LSD, you'll get all the extra light associated with a
normally over dilated pupil, and if you happen to be in the presence of DQ
intruding on SQ, you may see Dharmakaya if you're 'unobjective' enough.
Moreover, it's often suggested that drugs breakdown the connection to
culture and can induce this lack of objectivity. That is, they also may
induce the 'metaphysical predisposition'.
This double punch effect (over dilating the pupils and diminishing
objectivity) is probably why so many people associate drugs with the mystic
experience.
(5) Why do they over-dilate when you are insane?
---Same answer as #2 and #3.
(6) Why does the effect come and go?
---The extra light effect is constant, but Dharmakaya comes and goes
because DQ comes and goes.
GLENN
Quite amazingly, he also suggests that you can see the Quality of a thing
depending on whether it *gives off* the D. light.
RICK
I would think by this he means that you can see if it's a Dynamic thing or
not, not necessarily whether it's a good thing (remember, DQ can be
destructive).
GLENN
According to Pirsig, El Greco's paintings suggest that El Greco saw the
light around the Christ child but not the prosecutor of the Spanish
Inquisition.
RICK
Well... El Greco didn't see the actual historical event. He painted what he
thought it may have looked like. I think Pirsig was suggesting that El Greco
was someone who was able to see the D-light (physically capable and
unobjective enough) and therefore painted it into his scene because he would
have expected to see it had he been present at the actual event.
GLENN
He saw the light on Lila twice and he thinks this means there is something
Dynamic about her.
RICK
Or at least he thinks it means that there was something Dynamic about her at
those times.
GLENN
He thinks the kitten follows him around because the kitten sees the D. light
around Pirsig. The tiger gets up and looks closely at Pirsig for the same
reason. He's suggesting a shared, implicit communion between himself, these
creatures, and the D. light.
RICK
The pupils of cats let in far more light than those of humans (this is well
known), which is why cats can 'see in the dark'. Furthermore, no cats think
'objectively'. Therefore, all cats would have both the physical ability and
the right 'metaphysical' predisposition (or actually a lack of one) needed
to see the D-light when it occurs.
GLENN
It's not clear that Pirsig, when his pupils are over-dilated and he's seeing
the D. light, sees some things giving off the light, and others not giving
it off. He doesn't mention seeing anything give off the light other than
animate objects, so you're left with the impression that some things give
off the light and other things don't. If all things gave off the light, why
would he see special import in the things he does mention?
RICK
Theoretically should always see extra light because of the physical
condition. The 'special import' comes from the recognition of Dharmakaya as
something different from the rest of the extra light.
GLENN
When my pupils were dilated at the eye-doctor, everything in my visual field
exhibited this fuzzy glow, from furniture to people. I can't think of any
physical reason, if this is purely a feature of involuntary pupil dilation,
why some objects would give off the light and others wouldn't.
RICK
I think this is the best evidence for the distinction between mere extra
light and Dharmakaya.
----------------------------------------------------
Finally....
RICK
Pirsig is saying that Intellectual patterns are related to Social patterns
the way a river is related to its bed [foundation]. That's my reading
anyway. what do you think?
GLENN
If he intended 'basis' to mean 'foundation' then it could explain why he
added biological patterns to the quote. But if he meant this then why stop
at the biological level? Why not say that inorganic patterns are the basis
for our selection, which is even more accurate under this interpretation.
Of course, this thread of the discussion about this quote depends on
"observe" meaning "study", and I'm not so keen on that interpretation
anymore.
RICK
I was only suggesting that it meant something closer to 'study' than to the
notion that we're literally blind to the light. Right now, I think the best
candidate would be 'recognize'... (reCOGnize)...this would fit with notion
of
the cognitive filtering element.
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 - 16:01:56 BST