Greetings,
Reactions are much as I expected, but I shall try just once more. Pirsig may just be another mystic
and I may be wasting my time - that I am quite prepared to concede, but I am reasonably convinced
that our disagreement here stems from the simplistic view of the intellectual level forwarded and
from a mis-reading of what I'm saying.
DAVID:
>Struan: If there were no MOQ, you'd be correct. But the kind of
>reasoning you displayed in rejecting mysticism in favor of a rational
>approach is exactly what Pirsig was trying to overturn with his MOQ.
>Your post was clear and strong, but it seems you simply reject the
>entire premise of Pirsig's work. You view seems unflinchingly SOM.
I did not reject mysticism David. I clearly affirmed it as the fundamental 'stuff' upon which reason
gets to work. What I reject is the recent mystical interpretation of Pirsig's work which I consider
to be simplistic, wrong and irrelevant. I agree that Pirsig was trying to overturn the view that a
mystical approach should not be supplanted by rationalism but do you not also see that the rational
view should not be supplanted by mysticism. This IS the premise of his work as I see it, hence his
answer to the mystics. If you insist that the premise is pure mysticism and nothing but mysticism
then you may as well throw the book in the bin and float off in a cloud of dope.
On
>another issue, you said "mysticism would rank as the lowest form of
>intellect". I disagree with this. I'd argue that the mystical reality
>can be experienced by people who don't have the ability to understand
>what has happened to them. And as Pirsig says, A lot of religious
>mysticism is just low-grade yelping about God. "but if you search for
>the sources of it and don't take the yelps too literally a lot of
>interesting things turn up." (page 377)
This is almost precisely what I said!
I'd say the full blown mystic
>is far beyond the standard intellectual, as far beyond as the
>intellectual is compared to an illiterate person. The full blown mystic
>has all the intuition and reason of the intellectual, and then some. The
>mystic has developed insight, introspection, a literary imagination, a
>subtle and sensitive mind that makes mere intellect seem like child's
>play. ( I'm NOT making any claims about myself here.)
Your ideal mystic is a figment of your imagination. I might just as well claim that the 'full blown'
rationalist has all the insight, introspection etc of the mystic and yet has also developed a
rational and reasonable mind. We could argue that point forever to no avail and for no useful
purpose.
To answer your central point that, " the MOQ is a rational definition of mysticism." No. The MoQ (as
I see it) is a rational EXTENSION of mysticism. I have already affirmed that mystical insight is
prior to rationalisation. As I wrote before, "Insight arrives at what is new and reason harmonises
and checks that insight by relating it to other insights." This seems to be the central point from
the quotations you provide.
You can tell that I have a resigned air about me at the moment. You mystics may be right about
Pirsig and from the lack of dissenting voices on this forum I wonder if others agree or whether they
are merely apathetic. Of them I ask just one question. Has it really all been reduced to this?
Struan
------------------------------------------
Struan Hellier
< mailto:struan@shellier.freeserve.co.uk>
"All our best activities involve desires which are disciplined and
purified in the process."
(Iris Murdoch)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST