From: Scott Roberts (jse885@earthlink.net)
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 18:23:25 BST
David M,
Well, I would agree that Pirsig's purpose is to keep things relatively
simple, and that is a good purpose to have. The problem is that the way he
did it reinforces some common prejudices that prevent one from going
forward. The constant denigration of intellect, first and foremost by
calling DQ pre-intellectual, and repeated in the absurd notion that
intellect somehow detracts from "pure experience", amounts to a
self-contradiction. The intellectual level is supposed to be the fourth
and, to date, highest level of SQ. Yet evidently any experience *except*
intellectual experience is pure, and intellectual experience is impure.
Vegetables have pure, non-intellectual experience. Is that better than to
think about things?
Look at how many people in this forum think of intellect as all and only a
matter of "dry abstractions". It doesn't seem to occur to them that an
abstraction comes about through a dynamic process, and that that process is
a mystery worth contemplating. The view that Zen is about going "beyond
intellect", of course depends on the way one uses the word 'intellect'.
Pirsig has chosen a way that leaves out what is interesting and creative
about intellect. So in the MOQ there is no way to talk about its essential
creativity. All one can say is that one can "respond to DQ". That turns DQ
into an idol to be worshipped. Pirsig's choice on the use of the word
'intellect' also makes some of the most profound mystics unintelligible.
Look at DMB's interpretation of Plotinus, for example (well, Borchert's
that DMB quotes with approval). The connection between our intellect and
Plotinus' first emanation has been severed. Without that connection,
Plotinus' significance has been trashed.
In our thinking we are not responding to DQ. We are participating in the
DQ/SQ polarity. That makes a huge difference in how we think about
ourselves.
- Scott
> [Original Message]
> From: David Morey <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Cc: David MOREY <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>
> Date: 9/27/2004 2:51:17 PM
> Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
>
> Hi Scott
>
> I care alot actually. I entirely see your case, given the below
> I think you also see Pirsig's. As you seem to realise
> Pirsig realises that once you start to talk about
> intellect the whole question of levels, particulars,
> & universals come into play. I agree that to understand
> both cosmic evolution and the creation of levels you need
> to think about intellect too, as well as patterns, values, dynamic
> change, etc. But to me it is quite clear that Pirsig wants to
> keep it simple for as wide an audience as possible. Hence
> he sticks to the single term of quality that beautifully contrasts
> to quantity and its association with pure SOM. His first
> task is to defeat dualism, to underline the importance of
> underlying unity/holism. As you say below at bottom there
> is an undifferentiated unity where intellect has not emerged,
> or anything else, pure Nothing. Pirsig then wants to describe
> the levels of SQ and he makes the 4th the intellectual level.
> This is fair and clear enough, where the SQ products/patterns
> on the 4th level are intellectual. I would not argue with this in as far
> as it goes. Now what you are doing is unpacking the relationship
> between SQ and DQ across all the levels. If you do this, and yes
> it goes deeper, something Pirsig chooses not to do for good reason,
> you would be right to say that at level 1 there must be intellect of type
1
> that is active and valuing and using some sort of universal
> as a comparison/standard. And so on to the 4th level where
> we have 4th level intellect at its dynamic work. Holistically, we might
like
> to say, as you do, that there is something in common between the sort
> of intellect operating at all 4 levels, i.e. a cosmic intellect. That I
> agree
> with. Perhaps I am just not argumentative. I am happy to use the term
> cosmic intellect in your sense, but also 4th level intellect in Pirsig's
> sense although he really restricts it, generally, to 4th level
intellectual
> products or SQ patterns as that is what he wishes to explain
> -in terms of levels containing patterns. I think Pirsig does this to keep
it
> simple.
> Perhaps we can adopt cosmic intellect and level 1(or 2 or 3 or 4)
intellect
> to
> explain what we mean. I have no objection to cosmic intellect,
> but not sure about DMB? Pirsig's approach does at least stop
> us thinking that electrons or DNA or plants or animals have ideas
> in exactly the same way humans do, but I also think that there would
> be something in common about the capacity of values, and therefore
> judgement, to occur on all these levels. The danger with Scott's approach
> is that it can start to look like SOM again (exactly what DMB starts to
> do with Scott's idea, i.e. asking is it SOM again) if you have not already
> clearly shut out SOM as I accept Scott has. It has to be clear that our
> holistic
> metaphysics contains no aspects that are falling towards the poles
> of only mind-like or only matter-like. In MOQ everything has quality,
> value, causal reality. As for choice? Well where there is awareness there
> is choice and vice-versa. But where there is deep and old SQ, well
> maybe things get a bit dim and sleepy, and the same again occurs with
little
> deliberation (i.e. intellect).
>
> Thanks both, good discussion.
>
> David M
>
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 - 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 Sep 28 2004 - 18:39:37 BST