John B. and all:
Your essay was quite readable and I think it asks some important
questions about the MOQ. But there is one crucial issue I'd like to take
up with you. You made these three related statements on pages 8, 9 and
10.
"I have...argued that the mystic puts his trust in quality at the
biological level. This is, in organismic terms, the most immediate form
of experience, unmediated by intelligence or social factors, and linked
very closely to survival."
"Organisms experience quality as the primary empirical reality of the
world."
"Mysticism is the abandonment of static patterns by people and is made
possible by focusing on dynamic biological experience."
When these statements are cross-referenced with each other there is
little room to misunderstand your meaning. We could say that "Mystics
trust quality at the biological level" and "Mysticism is dynamic
biological experience" are the heart of the idea, yes? You're saying
that the biological level, with its pure sensory data, is direct and
immediate experience or Dynamic quality, yes?
I understand what you mean and there are at least two good reasons to
think this is true. The poem on how to be a dead man says to abandon
social and intellectual patterns, and this is clearly about the mystical
experience. And Pirsig does say that the mystic experiences the primary
empirical reality (PER) directly. He says this many times in several
different contexts. But, based on the three quoted statements from your
essay, I think you have made a mistake. It may seem like a subtle
detail, but I think its a minor error with giant implications.
RAW SENSORY DATA OUGHT NOT BE CONSTRUED AS DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF THE
PRIMARY EMPIRICAL REALITY.
The dead man poem does seem to imply that mystical experience is at the
bio level because it says to kill the social and intellectual, but
remember Pirsig is only translating that poem into MOQ terms. He's
borrowing an idea. In addition there is the problem of confusion. What
would it mean to abandon bio patterns too? Would some nut case take it
as a recommendation to commit suicide. (There had been several
rock-lyric inspired teen suicides in the years before Lila's
publication.) In short, I think we shouldn't take that passage too
literally. He's not trying to be nuts-and bolts precise about the
details of the MOQ there.
But this is the more important and much more easily misunderstood part
of the issue. Pirsig's "primary empirical reality" means something quite
different than the classical empiricists had in mind. The classical
enlightenment philosophers had an idea very much like yours, that
biologically based sensory data was the primary experience. But Pirsig
has shifted to something EVEN MORE PRIMARY than that. His PER is Dynamic
Quality itself and is free of all static patterns, EVEN BIOLOGICAL AND
INORGANIC static patterns.
You see, even raw sensory data has been mediated through the two lowest
levels and is therefore twice removed from the PER.
Raw sensory data is clearly less mediated than the intellect, but still
requires two levels of static patterns to produce that raw data.
Do you see what I mean? Your misconception has you using the phrase
"dynamic biological experience". This construction tries to gloss over
the contradiction by leaving the word "static" out of it, but I think
you'll agree that biological static patterns are static patterns and
therefore can't be dynamic too. Its like saying "dynamic patterns" or
"undifferentiated static". Its a contradiction.
Again the main point I'm trying to make is that PURE SENSORY DATA IS NOT
THE PRIMARY EMPIRICAL REALITY in Pirsig's MOQ. Quality is.
Looking forward to hearing ideas about this issue and hope Roger is
watching. He may have similar misconceptions here.
David B.
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 - 16:03:10 BST