Hey Glenn and Erin,
GLENN
You say: "all poodles are dogs but all dogs are not poodles..." The second
clause doesn't make sense because "all dogs are not poodles" means no dogs
are poodles. In the second clause you mean "not all dogs are poodles".
Similarly, I think you mean that "Dharmakaya is extra light let in by over
dilated pupils, but not all extra light let in by over dilated pupils is
Dharmakaya".
RICK
Yes... that is precisely what I meant. I'll be more careful of that phrasing
in the future.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN
Just because cats can dilate their pupils more than humans doesn't mean they
over-dilate them with respect to what the cat brain can handle.
RICK
Okay. I see now where we're going in different directions. You're
thinking that some people have pupils that over-dilate and let in more light
than their brains can handle, and that that light is the D-light.
I'm thinking that Pirsig is saying that in the same way there are
events in the audio spectrum that are naturally outside our range of hearing
(ie. dog-whistles), there are also events in the light spectrum that are
naturally outside our range of vision. And as surely as there are some rare
individuals who can hear a dog-whistle (legendary Beatles Engineer Geoff
Emerick was one), there some rare individuals who can perceive events in the
light spectrum that the rest of us just can't (like Pirsig and El Greco).
This ability is rooted in a physical tendency for the pupils to over-dilate,
which lets in all kind of light that is normally kept out.
One of the events these people are capable of perceiving is the
Dharmakaya light - an objective physical phenomenon caused by the intrusion
of Dynamic quality on static patterns (not supernatural, DQ is perfectly
natural). But as most people in general have no understanding of DQ, most
of those with the increased light-perception also have no understanding of
DQ (especially in western cultures) and thus, nothing with which to
correlate the appearance of D-light. As a result, they dismiss it as
'objective' but irrelevant, or 'subjective'.
GLENN
My interpretation of what Pirsig means depends on the Pirsig quote: "...he
thought that the light was NOTHING MORE than involuntary widening of the
iris of the eyes of the observer... [emphasis added]." I take this to mean
that there is nothing special about the light itself that is let in through
the over-dilated pupils.
RICK
There are some problems with this interpretation though. Take this
quote:
PIRSIG
Phaedrus remembered [the light] from the time with Dusenberry at the peyote
meeting, although he had assumed that it was just an optical illusion
produced by the drug and not of any great importance.
RICK
Phaedrus had dismissed the light because he mistook it for an 'optical
illusion produce by the drug'. Your reading seems to make the light an
'optical illusion produced by an overload of the amount of light our brains
can accommodate'.
But moreover, your theory that 'there is nothing special about the light
itself' clashes with the last part of this quote. Like a 'drug induced
D-light', your 'stimulus-overload induced D-light' also wouldn't be of any
'great importance'.
In fact, if Pirsig thinks the light is what you say he does... it's
difficult to explain why he talks about it at all. It only makes sense if
the light is associated with DQ intruding on SQ. That was the 'great
importance' he had missed that night with Dusenberry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN
Pirsig attributes no cause to why some people's pupils over-dilate. He says
it's involuntary. However my interpretation ignores this and says that
understanding the cause of the over-dilation is the key to understanding the
effect. I assumed the over-dilation was caused by non-objectivity which
automatically ushers in DQ.
RICK
My interpretation says your both right. One would have to have the
'involuntary' trait of over-dilation, and a non-objective metaphysical
disposition, which can be learned, and thus I believe rightfully called
'voluntary'. Or in other words... You can't choose to SEE the light, but
you can choose to be the kind of person who would RECOGNIZE it if they could
SEE it.
GLENN
Of course, it may be that Pirsig hadn't thought through the issue enough
himself and left some lose ends, or didn't want to confront the troublesome
physical/mystical interface like I am.
RICK
Pirsig may not even realize that most people don't have the 'physical
predisposition' to seeing extra light that he does.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK
> > 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!
GLENN
> Not always. He says it "often" is.
PIRSIG
In a Metaphysics of Quality, however, this light is important because it
often appears associated with *undefined auspiciousness*, this is with
Dynamic Quality. It signals a Dynamic intrusion upon a static situation.
When there is a letting go of static patterns the light occurs (p389).
RICK
The light is always CAUSED by Dynamic Quality (that's why it's
*important* in the MOQ). He just saying that it's just not always
ASSOCIATED with DQ because not everyone who sees the light has a mechanism
to explain DQ. I think the last two sentences of this quote make it pretty
clear that he thinks the light is produced by the interplay of DQ and SQ.
Interestingly, he also says ...
PIRSIG
It is often accompanied by a feeling of relaxation because static patterns
have been jarred loose.
RICK
Apparently, DQ intruding on SQ produces light and a relaxing feeling.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK
>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.
GLENN
> Right. From Pirsig's point of view, this explains why the culture can't
> explain the D. effect properly. By culture here I think he means the
> culture at large, not the explanations given by the few people in the
> culture who see the light.
RICK
Agreed.
-------------------------------------------------------------
GLENN
Your saying that Pirsig thinks the D. light is seen with the same
frequency in Western culture as other cultures, but is dismissed by people
who see it in our culture because of our cultural static filters.
However, Pirsig says that in our culture "nobody sees it", not that the
people who see it dismiss it.
PIRSIG:
But nobody sees it because the cultural definition of what is real and what
is unreal filters out the Dharmakaya light....
RICK
He must be using 'see' as 'notice'... If not, this quote would be
nonsensical. If the light is 'actually physically unseen' than what could it
mean for 'cultural definitions of what is real and what is unreal' to
'filter' the D-light out? What would be filtered out? And what would it be
filter out of?
GLENN
He says that in other cultures the references to light are "everywhere",
suggesting that he thinks people in these other cultures see the D. light
with much greater frequencies.
RICK
I believe he's saying that the same (very small) percentage of our
culture can see the light, but less from our culture recognize it and so it
SEEMS much more prevalent outside of our culture. If our culture adopted a
less objective mythos, it would suddenly find many more members that can
'see the light'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK
---His [Pirsig's] 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.
GLENN
> If Pirsig's pupils were always over-dilated he would always be like I
> was at the eye doctor. This would be annoying and even debilitating if
> he had it all the time, and he doesn't mention this.
RICK
He wouldn't have to be as bad as one who's just had chemicals spilled into
their eye. Perhaps his eyes are just more sensitive to light than others...
Like a cat, his vision can just handle a greater volume of light than
most.
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