1. PIRSIG IS NO MYSTIC
2. THE IMPORTANCE OF QUESTIONS
Hi Kevin, Struan, Glove, Horse, David, Woodreaux etc. and everyone else
involved in the mysticism discussion.
David:
>"AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION exists between things like instinct,
intuition,
>insight, inspiration - and the mystical experience. DQ is not only the
>ground of being, it is also the driving force behind the evolution of
the
>universe. Instinct, intuition and insight each represent the Dynamic at
>work in seperate levels of static patterns that exist in living beings
like
>us."
>
Kevin (to David):-
>I think your one step away from acknowledging the necessity of a mystic
>level and thus I ask only one question: on what static level does
intuition
>exist?
It seems totally pointless to go creating levels for concepts as woolly
as mysticism. Personally, I feel that Pirsig himself erred with his
"intellectual level" which is almost as woolly. A while back (see the
archive) I posted several times about how the MoQ might work better
without Intellect AS A LEVEL. My main arguments still stand . . .
It seems to me that the mystic rejects all knowledge as unimportant, or
even misleading. The mystic may claim to be be inspired, but what's the
point of inspiration unless it can communicated as new knowledge?
To acknowledge metaphysics is to acknowledge that knowledge can be
taught and learned, hence the importance of the teacher philosophers of
ancient Greece. Pirsig gives us a good insight in Rhetoric vs. Dialectic
clash described in ZAMM. Pirsig defended the position of the sophists,
the orators who used rhetoric in the assemblies of ancient Greece. The
sophists were denounced by Plato, who professed that rhetoric must take
second place to dialectical reasoning. Rhetoric can hardly have been
abhorrent to the sophists - indeed, it seems from Plato's dialogues that
the sophists made good use of the dialectic AS A TOOL OF RHETORIC. The
argument was one of precedence - both camps accepted the principal of
teaching through persuasion. It seems to me that mysticism must REJECT
this principal - you can't "persuade" someone to mystical "insight".
Thus, my first conclusion:
Pirsig's act of writing a metaphysics was a direct (and admitted)
rejection of mysticism.
******************************************************************
Let me continue on the theme of rhetorical vs. dialectical persuasion.
We are all familiar with the dialectical "catechism" approach of asking
and answering questions. This is a centrepiece of SOM, with the focus
very much on the answers.
We are also all familiar with the concept of the RHETORICAL question.
Here the point isn't so much the answers, but the possible types of
answers the question implies.
I think it was Donny who wrote in depth about question-focused vs.
answer-focused learning (are you still around Donny?).
This is very central to the MoQ/SOM discussion. SOM is great for
answering questions, but lousy at asking them. To ask a really great
question takes . . . . INSPIRATION - computers can't do it!!!
Typically, the Lila Squad has made the mistake of constantly discussing
how well we can ANSWER questions using the MoQ. Unfortunately, we have
had very few really good questions.
What sorts of questions should we be asking?
Jonathan
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