Hey Glenn,
RICK
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.
GLENN
Why would you think this, if he doesn't say it? He just says "extra light",
not light at different frequencies. By extra light he is referring to its
intensity, not its frequency. That's why he says it makes things look
"brighter". He doesn't say he saw new colors, like ultra-violet and
infra-red.
RICK
I'm skeptical of an interpretation that would say EVERYONE is capable of
seeing the light if they are only nonobjective enough. I don't believe
Pirsig explicitly claims anywhere in the passage that EVERYONE is capable of
seeing the light and I don't think he intends to imply such a thing. If that
was the case then you'd expect to see much higher numbers of people who see
light (why wouldn't ALL painters from El Greco's time and culture paint the
light?). And absolutely anyone could be 'taught' to see the light.
Rather, I think Pirsig may be referencing the 'pupil dilation' as a
biological filter which proceeds the sociological filter of objectivity.
Perhaps 'light spectrum', 'range of vision', etc. was a confusing way to
express my point. I was NOT suggesting that it was a difference of
'frequency' (and obviously Pirsig suggests no such thing). I was suggesting
only that 'light' is an objective inorganic phenomenon (not supernatural)
and if the D-light is like any other kind of inorganic light than EVERYONE
would have the potential to see it (depending only on point of view)...
unless there is some physiological quality which cuts it off in the vast
majority of us.
My point was only that there may be a biological as well as sociological
filter. How the filter may work is a bit beyond my scientific aptitudes.
RICK
Pirsig may not even realize that most people don't have the 'physical
predisposition' to seeing extra light that he does.
GLENN
Hmm. Is this Rick's interpretation of the D. light, or Rick's interpretation
of Pirsig's interpretation?
RICK
I think we agree (though for different reasons) that the passage is
virtually impossible to coherently interpret without further clarification
from Pirsig as to how he's using certain terms. Sometimes it's tempting to
try and guess why he may have said something in a certain way (I'll try to
be more careful in noting when I'm doing so).
Again, he never explicitly says that EVERYONE can see the light. My
thought here was that perhaps whatever physical attribute is responsible for
D-light isn't present in everyone (or isn't equally present in everyone).
If there are social filters that block out its perception, why not
biological ones?
And if there is a 'biological filter', and Pirsig is lacking it (and can
therefore see the light), he may not realize that perception of the light
depends on more than social filtering because FOR HIM, it doesn't... Just a
speculation though.
GLENN
>From here, there are no good quotes to distinguish several interpretations,
but here are some I could accept for what Pirsig thinks:
1) low objectivity causes the pupils to widen. The D. effect is seen. DQ
will manifest itself in the objects that emit the light, if DQ is present in
them. If DQ is present, you will sense it. If you don't believe in it,
you'll attribute it to subjectivity or some spurious objective event. Your
objectivity could be lowered in many ways (spontaneously, eye drops, peyote,
meditation, your cultural beliefs, your religious beliefs)
2) pupils widen involuntarily and unpredictably in all people. When this
happens, the light goes in your brain, but before it gets to the perception
centers in the visual cortex, it is cut off if your objectivity is high.If
objectivity is low, the D. effect is seen. DQ will manifest itself...(rest
is same as 1)
3) pupils widen involuntarily but rarely in all people. When this happens,
the light is seen, but carries no mystic significance if the culture is too
objective. Since the effect is rare to begin with, objective cultures sweep
it under the rug. If objectivity is low, the full blown D. effect is seen,
with objects emitting the light as being carriers of DQ.
I like 2 best now and 1 was my previous interpretation, which is still
sort of OK. 3 is closest to yours and is also acceptable if you think he
doesn't mean "see" literally. I just don't think so.
RICK
I'm fairly indifferent to what the biological filter is, so if your
favorite interpretation was #2, then I would suggest.... "pupils widen
involuntarily and unpredictably in SOME people...." or maybe "...When this
happens, the light goes to SOME PEOPLE's brains...". You see what I'm
getting at?
My own speculations aside, I think I like both #2 and #3.
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