Ellis, Lind and Thomas:
Right on TR! Two of out three Daves agree with your post. Welcome JC and
all new posters!
Don't you think Pirsig's MOQ says explicitly that art is "higher" than
intellect. The fifth moral code is called the code of ART for good
reason. I think we can take this ALMOST literally. Sure, he is saying
that DQ is the creative force at all static levels and it not just about
painting and such. BUT, there aren't many "static" artists that are
worth a damn. In fact, it is a contradiction of terms. Show me a careful
and conservative artist and I'll show you a really BAD artist. How does
the line go? If you want to paint a perfect picture, just be perfect and
then paint naturally. A real artist is filled with DQ and that's
precisely why they are "ahead of their time". Show me an artist who is
not on the cutting edge and I'll show you a dull hack.
An old Russian scholar once told me that if a person reads all of
Dostoevsky's novels they don't need a bible. And of course he meant
those fictions contained all the theology, philosophy and metaphysics a
person would ever need. It seems to me that Pirsig's "novels" are a
little richer than mere philosophy. Maybe its not the best fiction in
the world, but the form he uses allows for lots of demonstration,
concrete imagery and a sense of kenetic motion. Its better than plain
text. In terms of the MOQ's moral codes, there's nothing degenerate
about it. Pirsig gives credit to other throughout both books and I think
its just plain silly to suggest that he wrote novels to avoid the hassle
of footnotes, or whatever. I think it would be a lot of fun to discuss
the "literary" aspects of his books. It would be a nice change and it
wouldn't hurt anyone's understanding of the MOQ either. It would
certainly go a long way toward explaining WHY Pirsig chose that form.
His admission early in Lila was not about the degeneracy of writing
novels or constructing philosophies, it was about the dangers of
intellectualizing the mystical. It was about trying to "capture" Quality
in an explaination. As TR says, Pirsig's MOQ is a "mystic vision", not
just an intellectual viewpoint. His admission to degeneracy is also a
grand claim in disguise. He's saying that Quality is "higher" and larger
than even a whole metaphysical system, which is the largest and broadest
kind of intellectual construction. Metaphysics can take in any number of
philosophies, from any branch of inquiry and always includes the biggest
branches; epistemology and cosmology. And still the MOQ is a lesser
thing than Quality itself. His apologies for the degenerate act were not
directed at art critics or professors of philosophy, he was talking to
the mystics. He was saying, I know its supposed to be ineffable and not
utterable in any language, I know its the eternal mystery and it will
always remain a mystery, but I'm gonna talk about it anyway because our
abject blindness is killing us, so get over yourselves. And to be fair I
think some of what the mystics have always said can be made clearer now
than in the past. We have a whole variety of intellectual tools that
were unavailable to the ancients. Meditative states can be pretty
accurately described in modern Western psychology, for example.
I sympathize with Lind's insult analogy. And it certainly not fair to
equate mysticism with kids getting stoned on a school bus. Now that's
degenerate! Smoking and drinking are the furthest things from it,
although "marijuana" does have a long history of ritual use. Cultures on
this earth that don't use mind-altering substances are actually
extremely rare. It just seems otherwise because modern Western culture
is one of the rare exceptions. (Witch burnings and the Inquisition put
an end to the long-held practice in Europe.)
In fact, the myth of Santa is a reference to a certain red and white
mushroom that will blow your mind. The reindeer ate the fungus off of
trees and the Siberian people would then drink the urine of the deer...
and then trip their faces off. Shaved heads and begging had nothing to
do with it. I actually believe its wrong for a normal adult to decline
such a journey.
But the main reason I can't sympathize with David T's view is that it is
so contrary to the MOQ. I don't think one can rightly say they like the
MOQ, except for that mystical druggy part. Its like saying you like the
MOQ, except for that whole static/dynamic thing. Pirsig's MOQ is the
best, but there ought to be 7 levels. I mean, sure, there's room for
different views, but certain aspects are essential. It just would be the
MOQ without them. If the MOQ is an intellectual description of a
mystical view and you reject mysticism or the mystical experience
itself, well then you've really missed the boat, eh? As Denis put it,
its the only view to have with respect to Pirsig. I dare say the MOQ is
pretty much incomprehensable if you try to see it any other way.
I very much liked Lind's description of the difference between seeking
DQ and simply letting go of the static. But I'd like to suggest that
letting go means more than just loosening our grip on our beliefs and
assumptions, although it would be a really, really good start. In a way
we are trapped in static reality. We are trapped by our senses, trapped
by our own identity in society, and trapped by our beliefs and ideas.
These are the things that give shape and meaning to our lives. And yet
freedom, real freedom, not just political liberty or freedom from
oppression only comes when we give these thing up. DQ is present to the
extent that we can transcend all that static quality. You know, be a
dead man.
You could give all your things to the poor and walk the earth in search
of truth and bread, but that's really just a metaphor. It refers to the
"letting go" Lind described. Ever see a movie called THE JOURNEY OF
AUGUST KING? Its the same metaphor. A man looses everything, but he's
richer for it. His was the hero's journey. You could say he became a
king, he became noble. But the journey is psychological and spiritual.
And in that sense, one does have to "drop out", at least temporarily and
on occasion. And leaving it all behind and transcendence is not really
helped by a week at the beach or drinking Pina Coladas at Trader Vic's.
We're not taling about a lazy Sunday picnic with time to think, although
that's awfully nice isn't it? We're talking about an earth-shattering,
mind-blowing, life-changing experience. One can imagine the implications
of encountering "the primary empirical reality". Its more real than
everything you ever thought was real. It must be like stepping out of a
stuffy room for the first time...ever. There are lots of different
reports and reactions, but the mystical experience often involved the
kind of belly-laughing hysterical laughter that's associated with a
sudden and seemingly profound realization. Its sooooo funny because its
sooooo true. And there is often a re-prioratizing of one's life
afterwards. I can safely say people who have such experiences don't
often run off in eager pursuit of a white-collar 9 to 5 job and a house
in the suburbs. That's exactly what they were laughing at.
Gotta go, DMB
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 - 16:03:13 BST