Hi Jeff!
"Jeffrey W. Travis" wrote:
> >and further, that Pirsig
> >never experienced it himself, either.
> Question: What's your take, then, on the experience that RMP relates near
> the end of ZMM, sitting and staring at the wall for 3 days and nights, until
> he was finally hauled off for ECT?
I was afraid somebody was going to ask me that. Let me just say that
from personal experience these kinds of things are generally caused by a
chemical imbalance in the brain. I don't mean to sound disrespectful of
Pirsig. No matter what causes them, these events are life changing.
Before diagnosis, I used to swing wildly between depression and mania.
In one of my more manic moods I came to believe I could hear the truth
in music. Nothing was too difficult for me to understand. Wish I could
remember some of it now...;) I developed my FLU theory during one such
event. This says that the 3 keys to a good life are
Have no (F)ear, (L)ogic will save you, strive for (U)nderstanding. I
still use this one.
>
> My take on it is that that was RMP's experience of purest DQ. [Not that that
> particular experience is a goal I would strive for, mind you.]
And perhaps it is. I always felt smarter and more aware. I truly miss
being manic (I was always a harmless one). Now that you mention it, my
experiences felt very DQ too. '
>
> I think you have it backwards! You suppose that RMP dreamed up DQ out of
> thin
> air to motivate the MoQ. I view it the other way around -- that the MoQ is
> RMP's effort to make sense of his DQ experience, and to express it in a form
> that others could grasp.
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way, but to me the image of RMP deducing
> DQ from the levels reduces the MoQ to little more than a pet thought
> exercise.
> The idea that the MoQ is the end result of hard-won direct experience, _plus_
> a whole lot more thought and work after that to explain the experience, to me
> gives it much more impact. That's just the difference in our viewpoints,
> I suppose.
Yes, I guess we do see things differently. I admire scientific types
generally, so it is actually high praise for me to suggest that Pirsig
managed to deduce something as profound as DQ from ordinary
observation. I also enjoy toying with ideas a lot. This was just the
latest. I'm not sure I believe it myself, but I do think the best way
to test an idea is to throw it out there and see what kind of response
comes back. Thank you! If we could ask Pirsig, I'm sure you would be
absolutely right about the chain of events leading up to his discovery
of DQ.
> Actually, a big point that ZMM and Lila both make (ZMM more strongly) is
> that you _do_ know what it is, but that it is not definable. Definitions
> are linguistic entities, and DQ precedes language. Even to give it the
> name "Dynamic Quality" is a stretch. The best we can do with language
> is to try to explain it in metaphorical terms.
Yes, I agree with that.
>
> In your view, is it necessary to define DQ before you can know it?
I guess so. Things that I don't understand generally drive me crazy.
> You are your father's daughter, sounds like! ;^)
The curse of a lifetime... ;)
> But at the bottom of it all, it's not
> primarily about linguistic constructs and metaphysical models. You want
> it to be, but it isn't cooperating with you -- hence a crisis.
Ah ha! Yes, you are right again. The right side of my brain must have
atrophied a long time ago. If it can't be dissected logically, then I
start to short-circuit.
> Hope this is some help.
Yes, thank you. But I still wish you had just defined DQ for me!
Best wishes,
Mary
Homepage: The Happy Iconoclast
http://www.geocities.com/athens/crete/8087
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