Hi Jaron:
Welcome to the discussion. You claim that Pirsig doesn't discard the
classic-romantic split:
> Here is my response:
> Actually I will get around to LILA and the MoQ that is
> presented there. I don't see ZMM as a false start or
> that Romantic - Classic Quality is inaccurate. I view
> the Romantic (pre-intelluctual/pre-verbal) and the
> Classic (intellectual/verbal) as what is going on for
> each invidual that is a member of the collective
> Social level that is spoken of in LILA. Which is why
> Wilber & Koestler are so important. EVERYTHING IS A
> HOLON! Everything therefore has 6 attributes
> Internal, external , individual/wholes [this is where
> ZMM comes in], collective/parts [This is where LILA
> addresses] and dynamic, Static [Again from LILA].
> So, do not discount ZMM & Classic-Romantic. If you do
> you are losing an important aspect of the nature of
> individual humans encounter with Quality. Pirsig when
> he wrote LILA was not discarding ZMM but adding a new
> layer.
But in LILA, Chap. 9, Pirsig wrote:
"Phaedrus had spent an enormous amount of time following what
turned out to be lousy openings. A particularly large amount of this time
had been spent trying to lay down a first line of division between the
classic and romantic aspects of the universe he'd emphasized in his
first book. In that book his purpose had been to show how Quality
could unite the two. But the fact that Quality was the best way of uniting
the two was no guarantee that the reverse was true-that the classic-
romantic split was the best way of dividing Quality. It wasn't. For
example, American Indian mysticism is the same platypus in a world
divided primarily into classic and romantic patterns as under a subject-
object division. When an American Indian goes into isolation and fasts
in order to achieve a vision, the vision he seeks is not a romantic
understanding of the surface beauty of the world. Neither is it a vision
of the world's classic intellectual form. It is something else. Since this
whole metaphysics had started with an attempt to explain Indian
mysticism Phaedrus finally abandoned this classic-romantic split as a
choice for a primary division of the Metaphysics of Quality."
Since Pirsig "abandoned" the classic-romantic split in LILA, your
attempt to keep it part of the MOQ "holon" cannot be supported.
Incidentally, "holons"are just another way to divide experience--wholes
and parts. It's typical of Wilber's theories: they bring lots of disparate
ideas together, but (unlike the MOQ) add nothing new to what has been
said before.
Platt
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