Dave,
Let me start by admitting that I do not read Lila with an eye to
interpreting every nuance of Pirsig's statements. I believe that, like us,
he is struggling with an attempt to explain the world in which we live in
terms that everyone can understand and this attempt results in some
statements that are vague, misleading, or sometimes downright wrong. I
believe that Pirsig would agree with me on this. On the whole I think he
has succeded in explaining our situation in terms of value, morality, etc.
extremely well.
Pirsig (Lila hardack-third page ch. 8).
"The Metaphysics of Quality provides a better set of coordinates with
which to interpret the world than does subject-object metaphysics because
it is more inclusive. It explains more of the world and explains it better.
The Metaphysics of Quality can explain subject-object relationships
beautifully but, as Phaedrus had seen in anthropology, a subject-object
metaphysics can't explain values worth a damn. It has always been a mess of
unconvincing psychological gibberish when it tries to explain values."
After a page or so of discussing where values lie in the brain he goes
on---
"This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance has been
the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Value is
not a subspecies of substance. Substance is a subspecies of value. When you
reverse the containment process and define substance in terms of value the
mystery disappears: substance is a "stable pattern of inorganic values."
The problem then disappears. The world of objects and the world of values
is unified."
P. 99 (hardback-2nd page ch 8)(read the whole paragraph)
"When it is seen that value is the front edge of experience, there is no
problem for empiricists here: It simply restates the empiricists belief
that experience is the starting point of all reality. The only problem is
for a subject-object metaphysics that calls itself empiricism.."
"This may sound as though a purpose of the Metaphysics of Quality is to
trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike subject-object
metaphysics the Metaphysics of Quality does not insist on a single
exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate
reality then we're permitted only one construction of things--that which
corresponds to the "objective world"--and all other constructions are
unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then
it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exist. Then one
doesn't seek the absolute "Truth." One seeks instead the highest quality
intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is
any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as
useful until something better comes along. One can then examine
intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings in an art
gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the "real" painting,
but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value."
Ken:
Quality came into being at the beginning of the universe and was, and
still is, responsible for the organization of the physical universe. During
that time there was only one "Truth" in existence. That which resulted in
the physical universe as we understand it today.
When sentience entered the picture it became possible for as many
"Truths" to exist as there are sentient beings. These "Truths" being in
addition to the single physical "Truth" of the universe. Pirsig's MoQ did
not reduce our "Truths" in number. We still have the same number of
confusing "sentient" truths with the attendant difficulties of
interpretation. What Pirsig did was to give us a coherent means of looking
at our place in the universe and a way to evaluate our current individual
"Truth" in the light of value. The idea being that the MoQ would gradually,
with the application of value to our understanding of our individual
"truth" journeys, lead us on to a higher level of value and morality.
Looking at the intellectual level of our collective "Truths" back through
the history of man we can see that this has been at work.
Dave says:
I think most would agree that the MoQ's "reflection" on reality is
passably
understandable and corresponds reasonably well with our collective and
individual
experience. The divergence occurs on interpreting MoQ's vision, or is it;
Pirsig's vision? and are two necessarily the same?
Clark says:
"Original human nature" is a product of the "good" of the universe. The
universe is "good" because it is the result of Quality operating on the
conditions with which it was presented. The universe is "good" by
definition because we accept "Quality" as being good. We are the product of
universal Quality therefore our human progress is based on a thrust toward
"good" and "value. Our "Many Truths" will gradually become fewer as our
level of understanding increases and we begin to move toward a common
understanding.
The MoQ goes on working whether we attempt to interpret it or not. The
understanding of the MoQ and its application to the human situation should
help to speed up its progression and is a desirable thing. Pirsig developed
the ideas contained in the MoQ so I would say they are the same. Ken
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 - 16:03:05 BST