From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 17 2002 - 18:31:32 GMT
Platt, Matt and all individuals:
> Pirsig writes (again in Lila's Child): "I believe there are a 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."
Platt said:
This raises a question I haven't found Pirsig answering directly: Does an
organism need an intellectual pattern in its "collection" in order to be
capable of responding to DQ? Or in plain English: "Can only humans
respond to DQ?
DMB says:
No. In the book, he describes Lila as dynamic in spite of the fact that she
is devoid of intellectual patterns. But the higher levels are more capable
of responding than are the lower one's. I believe there's a quote where
Pirsig describes the increasing "freedom and complexity" as static patterns
evolve. And certainly it would take a human to be creative on the social and
intellectual levels, but surely every animal can respond to DQ on a
biological level. Sex and such. To a greater or lesser degree all static
patterns at all levels can respond to DQ. Since we as beings are collections
of static patterns from (hopefully) all four levels, we can respond to DQ at
each of these. Pirsig's sex scene (chapter 15) demonstrate how to different
kinds of people, he and Lila, experience DQ at the biological level.
Platt said:
If the answer to the latter question is Yes, then "I" is dependent on the
intellectual pattern having evolved, making the association of the
individual with the intellectual level logically sound.
DMB says:
The answer is in the Pirsig quote. Pirsig says this position is "unusual"
and "may need some defending", which strikes me as a polite way to say
"that's a wacked idea. Good luck making a case for that." But the point is
moot because the answer is "no".
Platt said:
As for Ayn Rand, while she denies the existence of society, the theme
of her books like The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is the struggle
between intellectual and social value patterns--the social pattern of
sacrifice for the benefit of others vs. the intellectual pattern of freedom
to
pursue one's own ends.
DMB says:
This is exactly the misconception I was talking about...
dmb said yesterday:
Several times the "individual" or "individuality" has been
put forward as the most evolved thing, as the defining feature of the fourth
level. And although I'm sure she borrowed the notion from earlier thinkers,
she's the one who popularized the idea that the struggle between communism
and capitalism was a struggle between collectivism and individualism. This
idea has transmorphed into this forum to construe the social level as
collective and the intellectual level as individualistic. But this bares
little resembleance to the MOQ's explanation of those ideologies or anything
else in the MOQ. Its just Ayn Rand dressed up in Pirsig's clothes.
dmb said yesterday:
Not only do they have different conceptions of the
self, they have different conceptions of society. Ayn Rand says there is no
such thing as society, only individuals. How unPirsigian is that? Very! One
of his biggest complaints about SOM is that it fails to recognize social
values as unreal or unimportant and surely Ms. Rand's philosophy is a prime
example of this very defect.
Platt:
I'm not arguing for or against Rand's philosophy, nor is it appropriate to
do so on this site. I'm merely pointing out the usefulness of the MoQ in
understanding thematic conflicts in literature, as in so many other
things.
DMB says:
Not appropriate? Pirsig raised the issue. I think that make it fair game.
Even more than that, it seems to be necessary because it is the importation
of her notions into these discussions has led to several misconceptions
about the MOQ, such as the one you just expressed. Sure, you managed to
avoid the words "collective" and "individual", but your social sacrifice and
one's own ends sets up exactly the same false dicotomy. It might be fun to
lay out all the many ways in which Objectivism contradicts the MOQ, but I'm
quite content to know that Pirsig has explicitly rejected Rand's core ideas
in a soon to be published book. Its almost enough to make me believe in
prayer.
But, Platt, I'm with you all the way in your objections to Matt and I think
you picked the best quote to address them.
Matt said:
Now, the funny thing is that you have to be prepared to do the same thing.
You see, you say, "Show me the evidence for saying that Pirsig better fits
in the 18th C." Well, I'm quite validated in saying the opposite right
back, "Show me the evidence for saying that Pirsig better fits in the 20th
C. (or, at the least, doesn't fit in better in the 18th C.)" I'm pretty
sure that nobody at this site right now has the necessary background in
intellectual history to be able to make either argument, or at least to do
it right.
DMB says:
Holy Hubris, Batman! Can I stand near you? I want to be seen with you
because you're the only one here arrogant enough to make me look humble. I'm
in your debt. Just kidding. But as one with a background in intellectual
history, I can't help but take this as a challenge. Which doesn't mean I'm
planning to conduct a research project on the scale you suggest. No way. I
don't have enough faith in the fruitfulness of such a thing to make any
commitments. But let me add a little something to what Platt said.
Do you realize how many philosphers and schools of philsophy there were in
the 18th century? Yea, you probably have some idea. So saying that Pirsig
belongs there, even if it were true, would be far too vague to have any
meaning. Or rather, it could mean nearly anything from rationalist to
romantic, atheist to mystic. The 18th century had it all. You'd have to be
WAY more specific. I see that you do when it comes to Kant, but he's really
the bookend at the end of the 18th century and of modern philosophy.
Postmodernism practically begins with his Critique of Pure Reason. Every
philosopher since can ignore him at their own peril, so its not suprising
that we should see him in Pirsig's work. Wilber owes him alot too and has
adopted the three domains. "The big three" is what he calls them.
Cronologically, yes. Kant was an 18th century man, but he was the
exceptionand his work brought something to a close and opened up something
new.
Thanks,
DMB
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 - 18:31:26 GMT