scott,
>
>Gavin,
>
>gavin gee-clough wrote:
>
>>SOM privileges language over reality; the abstract over the real. not
>>the other way round.
>
>
>Well, no. The presumption that statements are true to the extent that
>they correspond to reality, is privileging reality over language. Or
>that scientific theories are to be judged by the extent they approximate
>to "the way things really are". The pragmatist, on the other hand, says
>that "the way things really are" is a chimera.
'knowledge' in SOM (ie in the west) pertains to the fruits of our
intellectual reflections upon experience. this is abstract (*drawn out* from
experience) knowledge. intuitive knowledge doesn't 'really' exist in SOM.
according to SOM, reality provides us with no knowledge other than through
our reflection upon it. this is absolute bollocks of course. to paraphrase
hume: 'we want something *then* we find reasons for it'. intuitive knowledge
- reality/undivided experience - is obviously paramount and is of course
synonymous with Pirsig's Quality.
hope this has made my pithy initial response a little clearer.
>>
>>when you are reading - immersed in reading - you are experiencing a
>>*reality* that the author and your own mind have in tandem constructed.
>
>
>You are sharing concepts, which are pieces of language.
gav: you didn't get this bit, which is the most important point.
when you are reading you are not consciously 'sharing concepts' or any
language for that matter (unless you are reading a textbook). if you are
reading *art* - literature - you are experiencing an *undivided reality*, ie
Reality. you are immersed in that Reality. That Reality is *more real* than
the words and concepts that are used to help create that reality. this may
be hard to get, but it really gets to teh heart of the matter:
westerners see the words, pages and concepts as Real; the story and the
profundity of its reality as subjective - unreal, fantasy. viewed
phenomenologically this stance becomes bullsit. it is obvious that the
story, the reality that you and the author have created, is ontologically
prior to any individual concepts or words.
pirsig's code of art and art being a window on DQ....this is what it means.
>
>>
>>the words are the bond between you and the author. words, per se, are
>>abstract. words crafted into art become something bigger and more real -
>>more immediate - than the 'words' themselves.
>
>
>Percepts are also abstract, though in the end, I think one needs to
>dissolve the abstract/concrete distinction as well. Think
>shorthand/longhand instead, maybe.
>
>
>>
>>experience in the present is the terrain. reflection upon experience
>>(thought) produces maps.
>
>
>Except there is no pure experience in the present. Experience is always
>modulated by the static patterns one brings to the moving finger of DQ.
>Without the patterns there would be no experience. Reflection on one
>stream of experience, is just another stream of experience.
gav: of course experience is modulated/filtered by static patterns. but
self-consciousness is another thing entirely. self-consciousness - intellect
- splits reality in two. this split then tricks us into thinking 'we' are
fundamental, when we are really only an idea.
remember we are talking about thought here, about philosophy and
metaphysics. these are intellectual activities - *divided as opposed to
undivided experience*.
think of it this way:
experience in the present (no thought - thought refers to the past, as
pirsig showed in zamm) is timeless, infinite. any idea, system, construct or
map we apply to experience is finite and hence inescapably approximate.
a good example of this is the fractal-like infinite detail of immediate
experience, contrasted with the 'atom' model of divisible (finite)
'reality'. no-one has ever seen an atom, it is a concept, a theory.
intellectually (map)it exists; phenomenally (terrain) it doesn't.
>
>This is, to be sure, normal consciousness, which the mystic says can be
>transcended. In that case, though, the word "experience" becomes
>problematic.
>
>
>>
>>mysticism and deconstructing (ie analysing) seem antithetical to me.
>>perhaps what you mean is that deconstruction is a preparatory step. that
>>is, like zamm, it is an intellectual path towards realizing the limits
>>of intellect?
>
>
>Yes. Deconstruction is what Buddhists call a skillful means (upaya), as
>long as one does not become attached to it. Eventually, it has to
>consume itself as well.
>
>Caveat: The above are perhaps overly glib pragmatist responses, as I see
>it, but sounding more certain than I really am about all this.
gav: i think your responses were well put pal.
>
>- Scott
>
>
>
>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
>
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
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 - 16:02:16 BST