Re: MD Pirsig, the MoQ, and SOM

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 16:44:47 GMT

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Pirsig, the MoQ, and SOM"

    Hi Wim, Matt, All:

    In addressing Matt's denial of metaphysics, Wim wrote:
     
    > Pirsig defines metaphysics in chapter 5 of 'Lila':
    > 'Metaphysics is what Aristotle called the First Philosophy. It's a
    > collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical structure of
    > thought. On one of his slips he had copied a definition of it as "that part
    > of philosophy which deals with the nature and structure of reality." It
    > asks such questions as, "Are the objects we perceive real or illusory? Does
    > the external world exist apart from our consciousness of it? Is reality
    > ultimately reducible to a single underlying substance? If so, is it
    > essentially spiritual or material? Is the universe intelligible and orderly
    > or incomprehensible and chaotic?"'
    >
    > This definition does not imply an appearance-reality distinction according
    > to me. The questions Pirsig mentions can be answered with: 'our perceptions
    > are real', 'our consciousness and the "external world" cannot be
    > distinguished', 'reality can be abstracted to Quality, but this is not
    > "single" (it is split in DQ and sq at least), it doesn't "underlie" but
    > "is" perception and it is not "substance"' and (because of the
    > indistinguishability of consciousness and reality) 'the universe is as
    > intelligible and orderly as we are intelligent and ordering'.
    >
    > Using the word 'metaphysics' doesn't imply that one believes there is an
    > 'ultimate reality' (apart from direct experience). It only implies a
    > question whether there is.

    I agree with Wim. But, one sentence in Pirsig's description of
    metaphysics seems to have been glossed over: "If so, is it (underlying
    substance) spiritual or material?" (Parens added)

    If memory serves me correctly, the issue of "spirit" has never been
    discussed here. Yet, "spirit" is not only at the center of Christian
    theology but also New Age credos. Pirsig's writings, however, barely
    mention spirit other than a few references to the "Great Spirit" of
    American Indian folklore.

    Somehow Dynamic Quality doesn't strike me as being especially
    spiritual. I don't see it as a synonym for what many regard as a spiritual
    essence, particularly that part of spirit which is thought to be the
    essence of each human being and that, for Christians at least, survives
    death.

    In musing on the death of his son, Pirsig asked, "Where did Chris go?"
    He concluded that somehow his son's "larger pattern" survived and was
    reincarnated in the birth of his daughter, Nell. He ends by saying, "What
    is seen now so much more clearly is that although the names keep
    changing and the bodies keep changing, the larger pattern that holds us
    all together goes on and on."

    Is Pirsig merely talking about DNA? A materialist would probably come
    to that conclusion. Or is he talking about spirit in the religious sense, a
    spirit within each one of us that never dies and may, in fact, carry on our
    personal histories beyond death?

    The fundamental appeal of most religions is precisely the promise of life
    after death. Just as the first living cell was motivated to free life from
    obliteration, so each person desperately wants to escape the finality of
    his own death. "Do as I say and you will have life everlasting" promises
    the preacher. No wonder his influence on mankind has been and
    continues to so much more profound than that of the philosopher.

    I've always felt that a metaphysics that doesn't conclude with (or even
    hint at) a similar promise will never capture the imagination of the world.
    You can say all you want about Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Rorty and
    Pirsig, but unless and until philosophy gives some assurances that this
    is not all there is, it will continue to be relegated to the backwaters of
    significance.

    For me, the "harmony" or "beauty" aspect of life that Pirsig touches on
    holds promise for such a philosophy that builds on but goes beyond the
    MoQ, a "beyond" that Pirsig hints at in Chap. 30:

    "Suddenly the foliage by the road opened up and there it was: the ocean.

    "He stopped for a second by the beach and just stared at the endless
    procession of waves moving slowly in from the horizon.

    "The south wind was stronger here and it cooled him. It was steady, like
    a trade wind. Nothing interfered with its flow toward him over the huge
    ocean. "Vast emptiness and nothing sacred." If ever there was a visible
    concrete metaphor for Dynamic Quality this was it."

    When living this scene, I'm guessing that Pirsig felt something spiritual
    though he denies witnessing anything sacred, afraid I presume of being
    lumped in with the likes of Christian Bible thumpers and Muslim
    bombers. (Thumping is better than bombing, but I digress.)

    Don't get me wrong. Kicking around philosophical ideas is great sport.
    I've been interested such ideas nearly all my life. Since people
    invariably reflect philosophical viewpoints, I've learned a lot about why
    individuals think and behave they way they do. But aside from that, the
    nagging question in the back of my mind has always been, "How
    important is it?"

    Maybe having fun is enough. But that spiritual business Pirsig refers to
    in describing metaphysics still haunts me as an unresolved issue.

    Platt

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Nov 12 2002 - 16:54:29 GMT