From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 00:15:32 GMT
Wim and all:
David wrote 8 Dec:
'full comprehension must preceed any valid criticism'
Wim said:
Then no criticism is valid and valid criticism of existing systems of ideas
precludes creating new ones and maybe even improving existing ones.
DMB says:
Then no criticism is valid? Huh? Oh, I see. The unspoken premise is that
comprehension is impossible. If I believed that I wouldn't bother to read a
thing. No. I think the book can be fully comprehended and valid criticisms
can be leveled against it. Frankly, I think its a little bizarre that anyone
would object to the idea. We ought not criticize things we don't understand.
I thought everybody knew that. That's what mom always told me. Help me out
here, someone. Am I crazy or is comprehension a prerequisite for valid
criticism? Its elementary, isn't it? Does anyone think valid criticism can
proceed from incomprehension or even from a partial understanding?
Wim asked:
Is that what we should be doing here on this list, philosophology...?
DMB says:
Philosophology? Huh? Oh, I see. Comprehending the MOQ is just like
philosophology? Because both take 200 years? Just kidding. But honestly, to
describe my approach as philosophology is so much of a stretch that I'm
stunned. I really can't imagine how you arrived at such a thought.
'The Metaphysics of Quality identifies religious mysticism with Dynamic
Quality. It says the subject-object people are almost right when they
identify religious mysticism with insanity. The two are almost the same.
Both lunatics and mystics have freed themselves from the conventional static
intellectual patterns of their culture. The only difference is that the
lunatic has shifted over to a private static pattern of his own, whereas the
mystic has abandoned all static patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality.'
Wim said:
To the extent that ZAMM is autobiographical, Pirsig is certainly entitled to
say this, at least with regard to lunacy. The whole MoQ no more than the
private static pattern of a lunatic ...?! Maybe we are taking him too
seriously? (-:
DMB says:
So the MOQ is the incomprehensible ravings of a lunatic? I take it to mean
you're not a fan. But seriously, with the distinctions he makes between
insanity and the mystical, its interesting to ponder what the book would
look like if he'd centered his MOQ on his experience in the nuthouse rather
than the teepee.
Wim said:
Like you David, I don't exactly see how the anecdote about Aquinas stopping
'his writing and his liturgical endeavours' after getting an insight during
the Eucharist supports the value of such writing and such rituals...
David had said:
'if the rituals and doctrines seem like straw to one whose just had a
mystical experience, it is hard to imagine how we can say they reflect those
experience well.'
DMB says:
But I didn't say it supports their value. Quite the opposite. Rather than
drop the whole thing and walk away, he might have said "Oh, what glorious
windows God has given us in the ways of the Church. It is throught their
rituals and symbols that we shall find God." But he didn't say that. Quite
the opposite. No. I think the Western religions have buried their mystical
traditions. If it were a living mystical tradition, the "writing and
litergical endeavours" may have seemed to him a magnificent thing, rather
than straw, an empty, lifeless husk. But I can only speculate because I
didn't think to ask him about it at the time. He said something about
needing "some serious head space" so I just got the hell out of there. He
cried and threw books as I walked out. I never suspected such a profound
disillusionment was under way. I thought it was just because they'd run out
of pudding before Aquinas made it through the line.
I don't know. I suppose the pudding incident could have been the catalyst,
but I'm sure it was the mystical experience itself that really rocked him.
Sure, he was plenty steamed. This kind of thing had happened before, once
with the fruit cocktail and twice with the apple crisp. He loved apple crisp
so much. Sometimes I gave him mine. Not because I don't like it. I'm crazy
about the stuff too, especially the carmelized parts around the edges. But I
gave it up because I wanted him to like me. I don't mean to paint it like we
were a bunch of lazy fat wierdoes who sat around all day obsessing about our
fair share and just desserts. Its just one of those things I remember about
the brothers. Anyway, if you asked him today, Aquinas would probably have no
recollection about pudding, especially not on that day. He had bigger fish
to fry. And I'm not just talking about fish pudding either. No, sir. We're
talking about a whale of a fish. His Moby Dick, if you will. No friend, this
shift in consciousness revealed to him the folly of all his thoughts and
beliefs. Twas a quintessential case of mystical disillusionment, which is to
say he was freed from his illusions. He was dis-illusioned. And that's a
good thing. And even though Martha Stuart might say that too, Aquinas'
transformation had nothing to with pudding. Even if he was pretty pissed off
about that. (This was not the smooth, silky, creaming pudding we have now in
the USA. It was more like bread pudding, that smashed-cake-in-a-cup nonsense
they call pudding in the UK, but he loved it all the same.)
Thanks,
DMB
P.S. In the MOQ, mysticism is far more valuable than ritualistic religion
and chocolate is the most valuable pudding.
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 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 00:16:31 GMT