From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 13 2004 - 16:46:44 GMT
Hi MSH,
> sam asks:
> Would you accept that (3) provides evidence for the truth of (2)?
>
> msh says:
> Ah, very tricky, Padre. :-)
Well, I wouldn't be wanting to give you an easy ride now, would I? :-)
>
> If you are asking whether I believe the usefulness of the MOQ is
> evidence of the truth of its premise that Quality creates subjects
> and objects, I would say yes, in the same way that the usefulness of
> Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion is "proof" that the planets travel
> around the Sun in a single plane of perfect elippses. For me, these
> things are assumptions that remain "true" only as long as they remain
> powerful in developing language that is highly descriptive of
> empirical reality.
>
> If you are asking whether I believe the usefulness of the MOQ is
> evidence that Phaedrus had a mystical revelation about Quality
> creating subjects and objects, I'd say no, for the same reasons. And
> no to JOA, as well. In fact, isn't there something about mystical
> revelations that makes them impossible to verify, by definition?
What I'm stuck on is how to draw a distinction between these two things, because I'm not too sure
that a hard and fast division can be drawn - but that's partly because I understand mystical
teachings in a different way to some. As I understand them, the 'proof of the pudding is in the
eating' (the Witt quote you referred to a little while ago comes to mind). In other words, mystical
'experiences' are ajudged to be mystical precisely in proportion to the higher Quality
understandings, teachings or lives which follow in their wake. They are not impossible to verify -
indeed, there is a whole department in the Vatican dedicated to the assessment of such things (for
better or worse). I don't think mysticism brings us access to a timeless realm that is only
accessible to a rarefied intellect, separable from our social level shenanigans.
So what I'm arguing is that 3) collapses into 2) as I understand it. As I said before, Newton's appl
e, the structure of benzene and the snake, Archimedes in the bath - and (for example) the disciples'
response to Jesus, I understand all these as analogous Dynamic breakthroughs within a static
structure. (Which is also how I understand miracles - I eagerly await your post on Hume, by the
way).
So with Pirsig, the greater explanatory power, economy and effectiveness of the MoQ is evidence that
the insight that Pirsig gained was a high Quality Dynamic breakthrough, and not a degenerate one. It
is that which makes it 'mystical' to me, not that Pirsig may or may not have had a particular
experience of some sort or another.
In other words, Quality is not an object waiting to be discerned. Which I *think* is the assumption
behind the split between 2) and 3), isn't it?
Regards
Sam
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 : Sat Nov 13 2004 - 16:59:32 GMT