Hi John,
Thanks for getting back to me...
In a message dated 5/5/02 11:57:33 PM GMT Daylight Time,
beasley@austarnet.com.au writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Middle East - collective morality
Date: 5/5/02 11:57:33 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: beasley@austarnet.com.au (John Beasley)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hullo Squonk,
Yes, you are right when you say "the speculation is that experience emerges
from quality. In 'lived' experience one does not speculate, and this is what
Pirsig is really about." The problem with discussing this is that the
discussion becomes 'speculation' too, and this is a seemingly intractable
element of trying to grasp the moon with fingers.
I agree.
However, I do find a difficulty in Pirsig's formulation, in that the
immediate experience of quality is not quite so simple as it might appear. I
think the best way to put it would be to say "just because it is dynamic
does not make it good".
I agree. :)
What I am pointing to is that the dynamic is perhaps
the only 'accessible' morality for each individual, but it is indeed
possible to compare moral positions from a static viewpoint, and perhaps to
critique the value of different dynamic viewpoints. In this regard, it is a
bit like art. The purely dynamic perspective is saying "Good art is what I
like", meaning whatever moves me. At one level this is unarguable. But it
means that nothing more can be said about art.
There is no such thing as a dynamic viewpoint.
Viewpoint, points of view, perspectives, perceptual relatives are extrusions
from dynamic quality. DQ is a source.
One can, as you say, compare static view points, as these are evolutionary
stages. The better stages are sediments of static experience.
Therefore, one can say about art that which pertains to ones personal history
of sedimentary static patterns of quality.
All these sediments can be blown away by a massive exposure to DQ; as you
say, being dynamic does not entail good!!
However, we recognise that art appreciation is not just what is appreciated
by a given individual, but that I can be educated to enjoy art that at first
glance seems not very interesting to me. There is an assumption here that
quality is not just what grabs me at the moment, but is also in some sense
inherent in the artwork, if I am prepared to take some time and effort to
learn about and understand it.
Education is a sediment laying process to use my metaphor?
There are no objects until one is educated into distinguishing them.
Subject and Object emerge from DQ.
Indeed, all human experience is open to
refinement, meaning that my appreciation of quality is altered by experience
occurring over time. Much human culture is not immediately satisfying to the
senses, but requires an educated perception. Hence I cannot appreciate the
beauty of a mathematical theorem unless I have taken the time to study
mathematics. Pirsig at one point talks about "quality meats", and this is
perhaps part of what I am pointing to. Put it in terms of a 'good' wine if
you prefer. The principle is the same.
More sedimentary layering here i feel.
Phenomenal sense perception and noumenal perception are evolutionary related
patterns of quality. The sedimentary layering here is not over one
experienced life time but the whole of biological evolution. The noumenal is
very recent and as such has its own static quality different from that which
is phenomenal static quality.
Therefore, one may phenomenally appreciate the colour and taste of a wine,
and noumenaly appreciate the geometry of the wine glass.
If the glass was stained glass and thus a work of art we may have a
phenomenal and noumenal appreciation of patterns focused into one apparent
object. However, the glass is primarily an experience of value.
So what I am saying is that quality resides in experiences of 'immediate
awareness', true, but that what is capable of being apprehended in this
immediacy is partly shaped by prior learning.
Immediacy is totally shaped by our prior experiences.
We cannot actually experience immediacy, and know we are experiencing
immediacy at the same time.
And just to make this more
complex, I would argue that immediate apprehension of, for example,
imaginary voices urging me to kill myself, can be a very real experience for
a schitzophrenic, but does that mean that no further moral assessment can be
entered into?
A schizophrenic apprehends patterns not immediacy.
These patterns are real as you suggest, and they can indeed be harmful.
Moral assessment in MOQ terms would involve privileging the evolutionary
related hierarchy of patterns i suppose?
My argument regarding mysticism is that for the mystic the
only moral absolute is immediacy, yet I would also want to say that fantasy
can offer the appearance of immediacy, hence there is a need to be able to
discriminate fantasy from what is, or the result is a very low quality
outcome.
The mystic makes no claim to moral superiority. (As far as i understand!)
If one were to meet a mystic i should imagine one would be hard pressed to
recognise him/her as such?
In my view, there are many non schizophrenics who live lives of fantasy far
more damaging to others and themselves and yet are accepted as mundanely
normal. I regard capitalist consumers in this light. ;)
I would be interested in your comments.
John B
>>
And i yours!
All the best,
Squonk.
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 - 16:02:15 BST