RE: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?

From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Sun Mar 20 2005 - 06:02:42 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "RE: MD Nihilism (Punk)"

    Hello everyone

    >From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    >Subject: RE: MD Whither "direct," "pure," and "immediate"?
    >Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 20:01:51 -0700
    >
    >Matt and threaders:
    >
    >Matt Kundert said:
    >As for the idea of "pre-intellectual experience," this is the exact concept
    >I would like to get rid of in Pirsig.
    >
    >dmb says:
    >The Metaphysics of Quality would be just about perfect except for two
    >little
    >things; Metaphysics and Quality. If we could just get rid of them, then
    >we'd
    >really have something more Rortyish. What? A guy can't make a real point
    >and
    >be sarcastic at the same time?

    Hi David, Matt

    David is right on the money here so far as I can see, and I think any
    sarcasm is justified. Now, I haven't had the luxury of going to college and
    studying philosophy but in a way I consider myself fortunate. I came to
    Robert Pirsig's work without any preconceived notions that I've had to fit
    with what RMP is saying.

    Instead, I've taken the time to really look at his work, to make an honestly
    rigorous effort at understanding, since my cup of tea was empty, so to
    speak. In other words, rather than expending effort at knocking the MOQ
    down, I've built it up over the years and as a result have had a wonderful
    time collaborating (although that might be too strong a word) with Mr.
    Pirsig in putting together Lila's Child. I have to tell you, I had the time
    of my intellectual life (up until now) in doing so.

    >
    >Matt continued:
    >...It seems to me that Pirsig is trying to say that our "pre-intellecual
    >experience" of low Quality _happens before language_, and this
    >pre-linguistic experience is closer to Quality than post-linguistic, that
    >language is a mediation between us and reality. As he says in the famous
    >hot stove example, "the low value comes first, then the subjective
    >thoughts...." (Ch 8) Value first, thoughts, i.e. language, second.
    >
    >dmb says:
    >The pre-intellectual experience isn't CLOSER to Quality. It is Quality.
    >Hang
    >on to your hat. Its important to have a clear idea of what you're trying to
    >get rid of, especially if it is essential to the MOQ. (As the sarcasm
    >suggests.) It seems pretty clear to me that Pirsig is talking about
    >something that is best understood in terms of mysticism or non-subjective
    >idealism rather than stages of sensory experience. The brain/mind identity
    >thesis is still basically living with those anatomical explanations, which
    >is what Pirsig is denying with the phrase "pre-intellectual experience". I
    >realize that mysticism and Rorty might not mix too well, but that doesn't
    >seem like a good enough reason to vandalize Pirsig in such a way that he
    >becomes his SOM enemy again. I mean, you're not just tinkering around the
    >edges here.

    Again, David makes some good points here although I'm not sure how deeply
    the MOQ delves into mysticism. I tend to believe the MOQ shoots for the
    common sense approach more than for mystic idealism. For example, during the
    work on Lila's Child I had to opportunity to ask Mr. Pirsig about the MOQ
    being human-specific in connection with one of his annotations:

    Bodvar:
    Anders went on to say that he did not put much value to the four levels,
    because they were far too fuzzy and human specific.

    Robert Pirsig:
    I don't think they are fuzzy.

    Dan Glover:
    But they are human specific.

    Robert Pirsig:
    Anders is slipping into the materialist assumption that there is a
    huge world out there that has nothing to do with people. The
    MOQ says that is a high quality assumption, within limits. One of
    its limits is that without humans to make it that assumption
    cannot be made. It is a human specific assumption. Strictly
    speaking, Anders has never heard of or ever will hear of anything
    that isn’t human specific.
    (Lila's Child)

    Dan now says:
    The key phrase to focus on here, I think, is "without humans to make it that
    assumption cannot be made." So when David writes "non-subjective idealism"
    I'm not quite sure what he means. So far as I can see, without a human being
    (a subject) there would be no assumptions (idealism) to be made.

    Thank you for your comments,

    Dan

    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 : Sun Mar 20 2005 - 06:05:59 GMT