From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 01:30:11 GMT
Pirsig writes (again in Lila's Child): "The word "I" like the word "self" is
one of the trickiest words in any metaphysics. Sometimes it is an object, a
human body; sometimes it is a subject, a human mind. I believe there are
number of philosophic systems, notably Ayn Rand's "Objectivism," that call
the "I" or "individual" the central reality. Buddhists say it is an
illusion. So do scientists. The MOQ says it is a collection of static
patterns capable of apprehending Dynamic Quality. I think that if you
identify the "I" with the intellect and nothing else you are taking an
unusual position that may need some defending."
Sam and all individuals:
Naturally, I have to butt in. You mentioned my name, so I'm not being too
rude, eh? I only have the energy to reply to some of it. Hope the readers
will be relieved. Not only am I trying to be brief, I'm trying to zero in on
the heart of the matter. Trying to cut to the chase, as they say.
Sam said:
The fourth level scale of values is diverse and creative. It is not
restricted to rational or intellectual development; it includes all that
falls under 'the good, the true and the beautiful', but also things which
may, at first sight, not seem naturally covered by these things. It would
include an athlete beating their personal best time; it would include the
'relational' values of friendship, marriage and parenthood. And so on.
DMB says:
I was with you right up to 'the good, the true and the beautiful'. I think
'the good' is best thought of as social, 'the true' as intellectual and 'the
beautiful' as aesthetic, creative and dynamic. As to friendship, marriage
and parenthood, surely these are socially good things, but they're not about
the truth. Part of the intellectual level? No way. Marriage and parenthood
must be among the most ancient and basic of social values. These
institutions have a close relationship to our biology and harness the energy
of our most powerful drives. But I digress. This is a good example of what I
was talking about in the Sophocles thread. You're painting social level
values as intellectual. And here I am agree to try and show you why they're
not. Did I succeed?
Sam said:
This Individual can still be perceived as a static pattern of values: a
unity formed of biological, social and intellectual 'selves', with
associated excellences at each level - physically healthy, socially
responsible, someone who displays the unique flourishing of their own nature
in whatever realm is appropriate, of the arts, the sciences, the humanities
or something different again.
DMB says:
OK. I'm almost with you. Except that you seem to be saying the intellectual
level is about an individual flourishing, by which you mean something like
reaching excellent achievement. And this is what led you to include athletic
achievment in the intellectual level, no? All this is just Homeric
excellence, worthy action in the public sphere and olympic ideals of
achievement. Its good stuff, but its not intellectual. Sure, you provide
specific areas of "flourishing" that make it clear that certain achievements
that require the cultivation of intellect, but that doesn't make achievement
itself an intellectual thing. What if I were an excellent cop or an
excellent soldier? While this is obviously desirable, good, and even noble,
but is not about truth, its not about the intellect.
Sam said:
It might seem as if this is the 'pinnacle', but I would say it is not. For
at each stage of the process of development (and it is a development which
is reproduced in every individual's own life-story) there is a 'lure' of
quality, which draws the individual forward. Or as Augustine famously put
it, 'Our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee, O God.'
DMB says:
Now I'm with you. No matter here you are, the lure pulls you still further.
Orpheus is said to have invented the pentatonic scale, which produces these
incredably heart-breaking yearning sounds, a mournful, sad longing. I think
it depicts the way this lure makes us feel inside.
Sam said:
Yet I find it interesting that almost nobody has defended the understanding
of intellect which Pirsig has explicitly committed himself to (ie the
'narrow' sense). Even David, who I think disagrees with me most violently,
restricts himself to a criticism of my proposals and not to a defence of
Pirsig's interpretation. I think the violence of David's reaction arises
from his misperception of me as a reactionary fundamentalist, but no doubt
all will become clear in time :-)
DMB says:
Pirsig has committed himself to a narrow definition of the intellect? I
think you're taking that quote from Lila's Child too far. He said to go with
the dictionary, but also said he never difined it because he assumed anyone
up to reading his book would already know what "intellectual" means. The
dictionary definition is just something one should already have before
reading about Pirsig's intellectual level of static patterns quality. I
already mentioned that I don't see you as a reactionary or fundamentalist.
Hmmm. Its funny. I used those words exactly, but hadn't yet read this post.
I swear. But twice you refer to my objections as "violent"? What's up with
that?
Sam said:
And yet Pirsig's understanding is inadequate, in my view, because it is a)
morally repugnant (what is the worst thing that we can describe about 9/11?)
and b) philosophically incoherent (what is the 'choosing unit' or 'machine
language interface' for the Intellect?). I note with great interest that no
one has even tried to defend Pirsig on the second element.
DMB says:
I'm going to skip the 9/11 issue because its too emotionally charged, but
let me just say that I disagree entirely. But let me answer your question
about the 'choosing unit' or 'machine language interface'. Both of these
phrases are terribly clumsy and pretentious, but I think I know what you're
getting at. You're asking what it is that responds to reality and makes
choices, no? You're asking about intellect in particular because this seems
to raise the problem of the intellect judging itself, no? Pirsig defines the
self as "a collection of static patterns capable of apprehending DQ". That
same collection of static patterns can certainly apprehend static quality
too. This definition of the self comes from the quote you included, which is
in a fuller context at the top of this page.
Thanks.
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 : Sun Nov 17 2002 - 01:31:51 GMT