ROGER JUMPS BACK IN TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE
LEVELS AND OPEN MINDEDNESS AND EVEN MENTIONS
SCHOPENHAUER
To Rob and David, with isolated comments of possible interest to Platt,John
and Jason:
Great post yesterday, David. I agree completely that we have been chasing the
same topic under multiple headings. Rob and a few others keep wrestling with
"either/or" scenarios of mysticism/meditation/Zen/open mindedness versus the
intellect and knowledge of the levels.
David captured the issues brilliantly:
>>>>>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……..
…It[freedom] comes only after a long intellectual journey. They[Lila and ZMM]
both refer to the mystical experience that comes after a lot 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.>>>>>>
Along a similar angle, last week I wrote:
>>>>Direct experience and intellectual knowledge are both necessary for growth
toward Dynamic Quality. Mystical, pure undifferentiated experience is DQ, but
intellectual advancement (a form of DQ) enlarges the universe that is
experienced. Mystical experience and intellectual advancement are two self re-
enforcing dimensions of the path. Direct experience is depth, knowledge is
breadth.>>>>>
But I sense Rob is still not convinced. He now asks (as paraphrased by
David):
>>>>"Who is the better judge of a moral question, an open-minded, sensitive
person or one who is well versed in the MOQ?">>>>>
At first I see the problem is again this "either/or" thinking. Can’t a person
be well versed in the levels AND have an open mind? Depth balanced with
breadth? Or, as David wrote," 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."
But I am not sure if we are really getting to the center of the problem. I
wonder if Rob’s real issue is he thinks the levels are of little value
intellectually. He has alluded to this in several posts. In other words, he
is all for intellectual quality AND open mindedness, but I suspect he thinks
the levels are NOT INTELLECTUAL QUALITY.
Rob has repeatedly asked for examples from anyone on if they ever gained any
value by using the levels. He also mentioned that they can be abused to
rationalize just about anything. Earlier in the month he wrote:
>>>>Why not drop the levels? Pirsig's only -- however amazing -- contribution
is that reality is patterns. They are experienced. Leave it at that!!!>>>>>
I could hypothesize all day, but I guess I best go back to Rob and let him
tell us where he agrees and disagrees. In the mean time, let me add some
reasons why I think the levels are the key to the MOQ as a consistent
metaphysics.
1) The levels clarify how value manifests itself into what we call reality.
Without the levels emerging from each other, the MOQ would be unable to
explain how the force creating rocks is the same force that creates life, that
creates thoughts. All are different manifestations of the same value. This
allows Pirsig to solve many of the great philosophical debates (mind/matter
and the other platypi), and bring metaphysics in synch with current science.
2) It allows him to avoid the metaphysical pitfalls of his predecessors. In
Lila, Pirsig explains how William James’ lack of clarification on the many
levels of value caused misunderstanding on pragmatism. It became too confused
with social values. Schopenhauer had similar problems with his term "Will".
As Platt and Jason mentioned recently, Schopie was basically alluding to what
we know as quality. However, his metaphysics was dismissed because of the
confusion between biological will and the other levels. Water "wills" to go
downhill? We know what he was trying to say, but you can see where many
critics found it absurd.
3) The patterns of value without further clarification would sound like empty
new age crap. All is quality. All is morality. All is love. Yuck! Pirsig
doesn’t just say this, he explains it , in my opinion. It is interesting that
in the other discussion group, John raised this very concern from the opposite
direction......
>>>>>>I am uncomfortable with lumping together my theories, my self, my body
and the world, and and saying they are all somehow equally patterns. Perhaps
at one level
they are all patterns. If so, it is also apparent there are very real
differences between them
which need explanation. It all sounds too glib, like the New Age use of the
word 'energy' to
explain everything and nothing.>>>>>
I believe the levels, combined with the static /dynamic split are the essence
of the MOQ. Just because some knuckleheads abuse the levels to rationalize
their preset notions on right and wrong and to prove to themselves that
Republicans are evil or that Clinton is the antichrist doesn’t make the levels
superfluous. I understand the Clinton fiasco much better than I could without
the reference to competing value forces and quality levels. So this particular
knucklehead appreciates them.
Roger
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