Dear Metaphysicians of Quality, more specifically Magnus and David:
The more I ponder the issue of whether to create a separate mystic level
above the intellectual level of Quality, the more I become convinced I am
right, and I would appreciate criticism to put these matters into
perspective.
Mysticism isn't an activity concerned with society or intellect. Mysticism
holds that to reach higher states of being (i.e. increase Dynamic Quality),
we cannot rely on crusty social codes or stale logical codes. Nor does
mysticism hold that biological or inorganic codes teach us the Way. Indeed,
mystics revel in the rejection of all codes.
While Pirsig clearly answers the mystic's objection to any metaphysics -
because it attempts to caputre Dynamic Quality in a static quality called
reason - Pirsig still fails to provide mysticism its due. Mysticism
provides a direct path to Dynamic Quality. Originally, I thought that the
existence of Dynamic Quality sufficiently explained mysticism - but
mysticism remains a static code which rejects the static code preceeding it
- logic.
Allowing mysticism its own level explains a large platypus of Pirsig's
Metaphyics of Quality - why a mystic view of reality holds more Quality
than an intellectual one. Its not sufficient to say that mysticism is more
dynamic. If that were true, we could sever the intellectual level from the
four static levels and if one asked how one accounts for logic and reasion,
we could offer that logic is simply more dynamic. But we add an
intellectual level - and indeed add all levels - because they better
explain the evolution of Quality. Clearly, the last step in our evolution
resides in mysticism - that is, the attempt to unify with Dynamic Quality.
And much clarity comes a war between the intellectual level and the mystic
level of static quality. Mystics value experience above logic and science.
Intellectuals value logic and science above experience. Seeing this, we see
that mystics hold a completely different set of static values from
intellectuals. Yet as with the social level and the intellectual level,
Pirsig bridges these two levels - as he explains in detail on pages 72-76
of Lila.
Additionally, I think this bolsters the integrity of Dynamic Quality as a
concept. In many instances, I am forced to explain a static code as part of
Dynamic Quality. For example, when explaining the idea of "love" to a
friend of mine, I stated that there existed a biological aspect of love, a
social aspect, an intellectual aspect, and a Dynamic aspect. In doing so, I
limited Dynamic Quality by applying a static code to it. This clashes with
everything Dynamic Quality is - it should remain beyond definition and
intellectual dissection. But putting mysticism at the top of the static
scale teaches us that Dynamic Quality remains undefinable, yet still
experiencable. Mysticism is our desire to achieve Dynamic Quality. To
return to the example of love, the mystic aspect of love resides in our
desire to unite with another - to break down divisions and reach for higher
Dynamic Quality.
This falls in line with the mystic's objection to the Metaphysics of
Quality which Pirsig never sufficiently answers. The mystics say
metaphysics is a degenerate acitivity because it attempts to capture
through logic and reason that which cannot be captured - Dynamic Quality.
Where is this mystical objection? Not in an intellectual level, because it
rejects intellectual claims at their very essense. Not in Dynamic Quality,
because it remains a static objection to a lower static code. Pirsig's sole
answer to the mystic is this "[A] ruthless, doctrinaire of avoidance of
degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics
are made of." He never explains why this should be so. Why is pure morality
evil? By creating a mystic level, I can further an answer Pirsig cannot -
because pure Dynamic Quality cannot be reached by humans who are so static.
Any staticism violates Dynamism - thus nothing is absolutely Dynamic except
Dynamic Quality itself. Said "fanatics" don't put mysticism in perspective
and thus fail to realize it remains a static level.
Put more simply, my ultimate thesis is this: the desire to reach Dynamic
Quality isn't Dynamic Quality itself. Rather this desire resides in the
subject, which under Pirsig's division would be in either society or the
intellect. This desire can be captured by neither - thus the creation of a
mystic level clarifies and validates the Metaphysics of Quality.
I sympathize with others anxiety about adding new levels - they remain
afraid that once headed down this slippery slope, levels may proliferate,
crushing any clarity that they once provided. But I trust our ability to
rationally deal with the Pirsig's platypi - and I feel the mystic level
kills one such platypus.
Sincerely,
Kev
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 - 16:02:55 BST