Kevin, Rob, Platt, Jason and All:
>From the little i know, Schopenhauer is a philosopher's philosopher.
He's Joseph Campbell's favorite reference. I was glad to see his name
posted in this forum. My plan is to look up Schopenhauer in my old
school books and fill you in on any interesting ideas and/or MOQ
parallels. Until then...
The discussion about the intellect, the four levels and mystical
experience are very interesting and I think they are central questions.
Maybe Rob's question is at the heart of the debate. I'll let that serve
as a focus for my two cents. If I may re-state his question a little,..
"Who is the better judge of a moral question, an open-minded, sensitive
person or one who is well versed in the MOQ?"
The question seems to set up a contest between immediate sensory
awareness and a well trained intellect. Reminds me of the earlier
suggestion that meditation is superior to intellectualization. And
aren't these same issues involved in the idea that Dynamic Quality is
the main thing, and static quality (the four levels) is an inferior
aspect of reality? Aren't the same issues involved in the objection that
Pirsig does not harmonize intellectual and mystical experiences. Isn't
Zen better than thinking? Aren't these the central questions? And
aren't they all essentially the same question?
I just guessing, but some of this view might be a result of our having
disected the levels in our discussions so extensively. Our attention to
them may have been disproportionate to their importance. Pirsig said in
both books that the first cut is the most important. You know, the first
slice into reality determines the shape of everything that comes after
it. In SOM the first cut is between subjects and objects and everything
is then classified as one or the other. In Pirsig's MOQ the first cut is
between static and Dynamic, between that which can be classified and DQ
itself, which can't be classified. Hardly anything can be said about
Dynamic Quality. It is a mystery and I believe Pirsig knows it will
always remain a mystery. All we can know (intellectualize) is what is
left in the wake of the mystery. All we can do is infer DQ from static
patterns of quality. All the intellect is can do is discover evidence of
the mystery. "I know she was here because of the trail of truth and
beauty she left behind."
I believe Pirsig says producing a metaphysics of Quality is a degenerate
activity because its a case of a lower level (intellectual) trying to
explain a higher mystical level (DQ). He presents it as the objection of
the mystics because they also believe that the object of worship will
always remain a mystery. "God is a metaphor for a mystery", as Joe
Campbell puts it. DQ is also a metaphor for a mystery. "Whe whol thing
is just an analogy" as Pirsig puts it. BUT it is certainly not a
degenerate activity to use the intellect on any of the three lower
levels. That's the purpose of the intellect. The intellect is designed
to coordinate the various levels of values within the whole person. The
intellect's ability to examine itself is famous, as in "I think,
therefore I am." It is only when the intellect attempts to reach beyond
its own level that it becomes a degenerate activity. Talking about
mysticism isn't really mysticism, but we do it anyway. At least we
realize our limitations and know that its all just a metaphor anyway.
Our discussions about the levels and the discussions that arose out of
that were all highly scientific in nature. In our attempts to sort out
the things in the world according to their place among the levels, we
may have regressed into a kind of Artistotelean categorization. Instead
of focusing on the static/Dynamic split, we were trying to define the
qualities of each level and the select the right "things" that belong to
them. Instead of just saying if it was a "good dog" or not, we got
caught up in pure-bred species and bloodlines, so to speak.
Pirsig is very sympathetic to the idea that one can get trapped in
static intellectual patterns or get stuck using bad intellectual maps,
but its also very clear that he is a philosopher and takes ideas and
their history very seriously. At the end of both books he does finally
leave all the intellectualizing behind. In Lila he has set himself free
of static patterns in a ritual burial and heads off into the ocean. In
ZAMM he and Chris can hear each other as they remove their helmuts. In
both cases we get a sense of coming out into the world. You can feel the
wind, and the freedom that it implies. BUT this freedom comes at the end
of both books. It comes only after a long intellectual journey. They
both refer to the mystical experience that comes after alot of work.
That's why the mystical experience is at a higher level than the
intellect. Mysticism isn't irrational, it is post-rational. It comes
sometime after the realization that ideas, philosophies and isms are
just analogies, just tools. But you've got to have a mind to loose it.
Kinda like consumerism doesn't feel hollow and empty until you're rich
and have everything.
Being an expert in the MOQ is no guarantee of moral wisdom, but it
doesn't hurt. The morality is in there, even if its not made plain in
this forum. There is clearly alot of intellectualization in Pirsig's
books, but they are also artistic literary devices. Christropher means
Christ bearer and the ritual and the end of Lila is surrounded by talk
about savoirs who absorbe bad karma instead of dumping it on others. The
whole thrust of his intellectual exercise is to open the Western mind up
to direct experience. The intellect and direct experience are both very
important parts of Pirsig's philosophy and it isn't a contest so much as
a balancing act. If there is any shortage of discussion of real moral
issues, it is due to the scientific nature of cyber culture and not the
fault of the MOQ. Pirsig began his quest, in part, in hopes of
understanding the disproportionate dominance of the scientific and
technological world view, along with its' alienation from values and
morlaity.
David
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:52 BST