From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 01 2004 - 18:54:53 BST
Scott:
Pirsig's attitude toward intellect derives from nominalism and
the empirical tradition
DM: no, Pirsig does not start with the particular,
he starts with holistic quality, and then applies
SQ/DQ to start understanding experience,
could you have any more universal concepts?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" < >
To: < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 5:07 PM
Subject: RE: MD Plotinus, Pirsig and Wilber
> DMB et al,
>
> > dmb answers:
> > I can see how a person can conclude that Pirsig and Plotinus are at
odds,
> > but would again insist that this conclusion is based on a misreading of
> the
> > terms. As F.S.C. Northrop put it, "The philosophically important thing
> about
> > any common-sense term as it enters into any philosophical theory is not
> its
> > bare dictionary meaning, but the particular contextual meaning usually
> > unique to the philosophical system in question." And actually the quote
> > you've provided shows that Plotinus is using words like "thought" and
> > "intellect" in a way that is completely different from Pirsig.
>
> [Scott:] Of course they are, because for Plotinus thought was something
> primordial, while for Pirsig thought was something derived. And that is
the
> big difference between the two. For they are not talking about two
> different things, like apples versus marriages, but both are referring to
> thinking. One calls our thinking a finite, temporal shadow of a divine
> thinking that exists outisde of time, while the other calls our thinking a
> static pattern of values created in time. Hence Plotinus can call life a
> form of thought, but Pirsig cannot, since for Pirsig life preceded
thought.
> Hence Borchert is misinterpreting Plotinus by replacing "Reason-Principle"
> with "Creative Spirit". The latter could be anything (like DQ or God),
> while the former specifically ties creativity with reason. This is
> impossible in Pirsig's metaphysics, so the two systems (Plotinus's and
> Pirsig's) are not different menus of the same underlying realities. The
two
> systems point to two different realities.
>
> But notice
> > how Plotinus is saying there are different levels of thought, namely
> > vegetative, sensitive and psychic. In Pirsig's terms, he's talking about
> the
> > levels of static patterns, an evolutionary hierarchy, not just
> intellectual
> > patterns. Again, as Borchet puts it, "Plotinus did not have this
> terminolgy
> > at his disposal".
>
> [Scott:] True, that Plotinus did not this terminology, but this
terminology
> is used to present a different metaphysics than Plotinus's, not the same
in
> different terms. Both Pirsig and Whitehead operated in reaction to SOM,
and
> in compliance with the evolutionary mindset developed in the 19th century,
> while Plotinus did not. The fact that both Pirsig and Plotinus thought in
> terms of levels is of secondary importance to the difference that Plotinus
> thought of time as an unfolding of eternity while Pirsig (and Whitehead)
> treat time as basic. This means that for Plotinus, the "superior" level
> comes ontologically before the "inferior", while for Pirsig and Whitehead
> it comes after. For Pirsig and Whitehead, the present moment is the point
> at which something (DQ for Pirsig, God for Whitehead) makes something new
> out of past stuff. For Plotinus (and all pre-modern philosophers in the
> Platonic tradition) the present is more of a finite window into the
> non-temporal reality.
>
> But notice how Plotinus says "every life is some form of
> > thought." In Pirsigian terms, I think he's saying that each level of
> reality
> > is a form of consciousness so that even subatomic particales can express
a
> > preference or a chair is a moral order. When we look through the terms
as
> if
> > they were transparent and see the ideas they are meant to depict, we
then
> > see that Pirsig and Plotinus share the same vision of reality.
>
> [Scott: ]Their visions of reality are very different. See above.
>
> >
> > Scott also said:
> > I think Borchert and Wilber, based on the quotes you gave, wish to make
> > Plotinus fit the modern ideas people have of mysticism, which are
> > unfortunately shared by Pirsig. They are, I think, trying to
disassociate
> > mysticism from philosophy and theology,.. ...Now the modern mystical
> > interpreter wishes to re-endow nature with something God-like, which is
> > legitimate, but having forgotten, or misinterpreted the ancients (as I
> > think Borchert is doing -- notice the use of the phrase "creative
Spirit"
> > and not "Intellect" or "Reason-Principle"), can think only of something
> > "undifferentiated" or "pre-intellectual" behind it all.
> >
> > dmb replies:
> > Hmmm. Its not at all clear what you're trying to say here, but let me
> make a
> > few points about the modern, or rather post-modern, interpreters of
> > mysticism, particularly Pirsig and Wilber, who say essentially the same
> > thing. Both of them attack modernity's scientific materialism for the
same
> > reasons, at least two of which are addressed and corrected by adopting
and
> > integrating the perennial philosophy. As sketched out above, the first
> task
> > is to correct modernity's view that intellect is disconnected to the
rest
> of
> > reality, that it was born without parents, as Pirsig puts it. The MOQ's
> > solution is to show that the intellectual levels has a "matter-of-fact
> > evolutionary relationship" with its parent and the rest of static
reality.
> > This view already existed in the perennial philosophy and in all the
world
> > great religions.
>
> [Scott:] No. Pirsig's attitude toward intellect derives from nominalism
and
> the empirical tradition, that is, only in the last 500 years or so. The
> idea of placing intellect within an evolutionary relationship is only
about
> 150 years old. Not part of the perennial philosophy at all. Before the
> modern period, change was considered regressive, a descent from the Golden
> Age. The physical was an inferior copy made from the intellectual.
>
> This is where the levels come into it, in Plotinus, in
> > Wilber and in Pirsig. The other major problem with modernity's
> materialism,
> > which Pirsig call SOM and Wilber calls flatland, is that it denies the
> > validity of mystical experience as anything more than a merely
subjective
> > hallucination. Both of them integrate the perennial philosophy's
mysticism
> > by expanding the idea of empiricism and including the mystical
experience
> as
> > a valid experience. Wilber's approach can even be called psychological
and
> > is based on heaps and heaps of scientific data, and yet it recognizes
the
> > validity of mysticism. And as I understand it, neither of them have done
> > anything to misinterpret the ancients, but are in fact correcting the
> > misinterpretations committed by scientific materialism, which has
> basically
> > thrown out the wisdom of the ages. Their idea was to rid the world of
> > irrational superstitions and such, and this is a very good thing in
light
> of
> > the Inquistions and holy wars and such, but they created a spiritually
> > empty, soulless world in the process. Guys like Wilber and Pirsig are
> trying
> > to fix that in a way that does not revert to bible-babble or other
social
> > level stuff.
>
> [Scott:] Yes, the re-acknowledging of the mystical is a Good Thing, but
> that is not the question here, which was: is Pirsig's philosophy more like
> Plotinus, the Tao, or Whitehead? I don't know enough about the Tao as a
> philosophical system, so I am not going to contradict Pirsig's answer to
> the question (the Tao). So my claim is that as metaphysical systems go,
> Pirsig is more like Whitehead than Plotinus, for the reasons given above.
> So while one might say that both Pirsig and Plotinus are Perennial
> Philosophers, they are very different metaphysicians.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries -
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries -
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 : Wed Sep 01 2004 - 20:53:25 BST