Hello everyone
Hi Rob, I've been away for a while too, and never really got to address any
of the wonderful thoughts you brought up last month, although I
did keep up via the archives. Nice to meet you here again!
Rob:
>>>>>>(Roger quotes David.) 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……..
>
>To start, I agree with the above. I, too, am trying to conquer my
intellect
>by making sense of it. Like Pirisig said about SOM, I think Pirsig's
levels
>are ALSO bad intellectual maps (to be explained further below). I am all
for
>thinking of reality as patterns; don't predefine or carve them in stone.
My
>intellect abstracts many patterns -- that my car will start in the morning,
>the laws of gravity will hold, sugar will taste good in my coffee, I will
get
>paid for my work -- because they are verified by my experiences. My
>intellect, however, tells me nothing about these things with %100
certainty.
>
>Same with the MOQ. At best, it might be a rough guideline that goodness
seems
>to evolve in a certain way -- but it shouldn't be deemed a fundamental
truth
>of reality. Treat patterns like a pattern! The intellect only tells us
what
>*probably* could happen or what *probably* is good. The more we
experience,
>the more sure we become! There are no fundamental truths apart from what
is
>experienced.
Glove:
I agree with everything you say here. I remember reading a passage in one of
Carlos Castaneda's books concerning what he called "controlled folly", which
I think is very applicable to all discussions concerning metaphysics.
Controlled folly says that even though in our hearts we know that we can
never be certain of anything in this life, still we choose to act as if we
care that we can be certain, as if it matters that we care that we think
we can be certain. If you master the art of controlled folly, then you
simply put your all into whatever it is that you happen to be doing at the
moment and ignore that which no longer concerns the moment.
Rob:
>
>>>>>>>>> ROB PROVIDES HIS THOUGHTS ON WHY THESE PROBLEMS EXIST
<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>These were my preliminary *intuitions* why we should forget about the
levels.
>
>1. Along the lines of Kevin's posts, I questioned the usefulness of the
>levels. The levels explained perfectly issues that which I already knew
but
>they never helped me with something I didn't know. My conclusion is
different
>from Kevin, however. Instead of using the levels for theoretical purposes
>only, don't use them at all. A theory with no predictive power must
somehow
>be flawed.
Glove:
I disagree with you here. Since we are here examining Robert Pirsig's
Metaphysics of Quality, we are bound by our controlled folly, so to speak,
to examine all of it and not disband it. We have been invited by Mr. Pirsig
to expand upon
it, if we can, but not destroy it.
Rob:
>2. Perhaps my background as a statistical analyst has caused bias, but I
>believe reality has a stochastic (a randomly patterned) nature. We can not
>theorize anything with %100 certainty. Yet, what we directly experience is
>known with certainty. That is why Krishnamurti has help me 10 times more
than
>Pirsig in discovering truth. The aspect of the MOQ saying reality is made
of
>experienced patterns explains why we should be in touch with reality.
>Krishnamurti and other Eastern philosophers concentrate on the how --
through
>great attention, listening, and nonjudgmental observation -- not thinking
>about levels.
Glove:
I not not sure which Krishnamurti you are talking about here. I've seen you
mention the name before. If you are talking about J. Krishnamurti, who is
more popularized, then I
can see where he's helped you in discovering the truth as he sees it. If you
are talking about U.G. Krishnamurti (though I don't think you are), I fail
to see how he
has helped you discover any truth when he himself states that there is no
truth to discover. In my opinion, U.G. is the more profound thinker, if you
can apply that word to him, of the two. You can find a link to his writings
on my webpage following the link below if interested.
Rob:
>
>Here is *WHY* I think the levels are causing me problems. If the levels are
>not useful, there must be a logical reason!
>
>1. No strict definition of the intellectual level. Stick to a definition
and
>the levels falls apart.
>
>Definition A: Intellectual quality is not the impact of physics, biology,
or
>social patterns. It is goodness and evolution
>which comes from careful human thought and imagination. As we discover
"the
>truth", reality will evolve to a higher state.
>
>If this definition is true, the MOQ is not incorrect but ambiguous on *all*
>human behavior and choice. Every choice comes from thought, so everything
is
>on this level. The MOQ says that the human quest for discovering and
living
>truth is most moral aspect of reality but most everyone thinks that
already!
>
>Definition B: Intellectual quality is not everything that comes from
thought.
>Thought makes sense of the lower levels to understand what is good. True
>intellectual quality, consequently, is only that which frees the mind to
have
>ideas. Freedom of speech is intellectual quality. Studying nutrition is
>intellectual quality. Eating a sandwich is biological quality.
>
>If this definition is true, then Pirisig contradicts himself equating
things
>such as justice with the intellectual level. Is the innate value of
justice
>that it frees us to understand things better?
>
>Futhermore, is an idea -- however new and truthful -- always better than
>everything else? Is an idea always more important than a life, for
example?
>
>c) Intellectual quality is concepts that change reality.
>
>Same problem as Definition A. Anyone who feels right about an issue,
probably
>has some sort of concept backing up their belief. Anyone, consequently,
could
>have some good or bad idea and slap a label of "intellectual" quality on
it.
>Truth comes then comes from debate/logic and so forth.
>
>Perhaps this was the intent of Pirsig's MOQ: to direct everything to the
>highest level known as the intellect. Don't follow honour, tradition,
>physical pleasure but always try first to
>question/conceptualize/experience/understand what is right.
>
>I could agree with this treatment, but I don't think Pirsig meant for this
>interpretation. Sexual activity, for example, was always labeled
biological
>quality despite any understanding of what one was doing. Furthermore, this
>treatment takes a lot of bite out of the MOQ. It simply justifies the use
of
>reason, which is what the classical philosophers taught centuries ago.
Glove:
I see that you failed to mention the definition of intellect I advanced some
time ago, which I think helps to solve the problems you list above. In my
definition, reason is assigned to the social level, as is logic. The reason
:) for this is that both reason and logic are agreements made within the
culture derived from in order to further unambiguous communication. Not only
is language culturally derived, but so is our sense of color apparently,
which was once thought to be a "universal truth". No more. See this article
in New
Scientist magazine:
http://www.newscientist.com/cgi-in/pageserver.cgi?/ns/19990320/newsstory3.ht
ml
Using clues Pirsig (and others) provided, I saw that the social level could
be described
as being guided by creative forces of value, while the intellect could be
described as being guided by destructive forces of value. These terms are
taken from Lila and are not my invention, however I have attempted to expand
upon the idea in a series of essays, which might or might not be readable.
That is for you to decide, I suppose.
And to the best of my knowledge, Pirsig's writings are just ambiguous enough
to allow my attempted expansion on value forces to work without denigrating
his metaphysics. You can find the essays on
my webpage here if you are interested:
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Bohr.html
>2. The problem of dynamic quality
>
>I was going to mention the different uses of the term "dynamic", but I see
>there are many posts on this. Unlike Roger, I intuit that the term
"dynamic"
>can't be clarified in any meaningful way. The holes in the MOQ levels
become
>exposed...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MOR (The metaphysics of Rob) <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,
>
>After all my scrutiny, I would like to end with my metaphysics....
>
>Reality fundamentally is made of patterns. We are aware of these patterns
>through our experiences.
>
>Reality is always changing because patterns interact to form new patterns.
>Planetary oribits, for example, were created through the interaction of
>gravity and inertia. Similarly, cowboy culture was created through the
>mixture of British and Native American cultures.
>
>Life is consciousness or sensitivity to the patterns of reality.
>
>The path towards truth and understanding begins with a sensitive mind. The
>more we experience and find patterns within our experiences, the better we
>understand reality.
>
>The path towads truth and understanding never ends. Because reality is
always
>changing, we must never cease to observe and question by never concluding.
>When we mentally cling to what is safe and familiar, we lose sensitivity to
>reality and all that is real. Fear betrays love.
Rob, I have no disagreement with you here. The Metaphysics of Quality is not
safe and familiar territory however, and personally, I have found that it
takes much effort to recognize the value it contains. I hope you will
reconsider taking another look at the levels and perhaps find the beauty in
them that I have.
Best wishes,
Glove
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 - 16:02:54 BST