From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Apr 17 2005 - 20:27:08 BST
Ham and all:
dmb said:
The levels of the MOQ are levels OF EXPERIENCE, kinds OF EXPERIENCE. The
whole structure is based on EXPERIENCE.
Ham asked:
If the whole structure is based on Experience, then why isn't Experience,
rather than Quality, "the primary empirical reality of the world"?
dmb says:
Yikes. If Quality is the "primary empirical reality" then it should be
pretty obvious that we are talking about experience. In that sense, Quality
is experience. Quality is empirical. See? If Pirsig had decided to call his
system "the metaphysics of experience" it might have been mistaken for
something Jimmy Hendrix dreamed up. There are lots of other reasons for
making that choice too, I suppose. But mostly it has to do with the problems
with SOM, namely the difficulties of locating quality in subjects or
objects.
dmb said:
Pirsig points out that the senses are just one level of experience, the
biological level. And this is the sense in which you are using the idea of
empirically-based facts.
Ham replied:
Right. But I can't "know a fact" without intellectualizing it. So
empirical experience must also involve Intellect. Also, some of the facts
we know, if not most of them, relate to inorganic objects and social events.
Therefore, it seems to me that -- unless the experience referred to is
nothing more than an itch or a toothache -- sensible (sentient?) experience
involves all four of Mr. Pirsig's pattern levels.
dmb says:
Right. That's what I'm saying. You're pointing out some of the serious
problems we have when it is assumed that eyeballs see an external world as
it really is. This naive realism begins to fall apart when we realize that
our eyeballs only see what the mind allows. In other words, seeing reality
as we do is actually a habitual interpretation of the mind. And not only
does experience involve all four levels, there is DQ too, where these
anatomical explanations are nowhere to be found.
Ham said:
I still want to know the cause or the agent responsible for setting up these
"static pattern" levels (and I don't mean MoQ's author). Is there something
significant about the fact that they've been defined as four in number? If,
as you say, "there is nothing magical about it", then whatever causes DQ to
divide into four levels should be readily explainable -- possibly even
empirically, or at least identified. Why is this not a legitimate
epistemological question? And why hasn't Mr. Pirsig or yourself addressed
the origin of this multi-level heirarchy?
dmb says:
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Pirsig made a choice to divide static
reality into four distinct levels and it seems to me that this is a pretty
darn good choice. But similar systems construe it differently. The most
common and simple ones only use three. (body, mind and spirit.) Some systems
have dozens of levels. Ken Wilber has a system that looks alot like
Pirsig's, except that each of the four levels is subdivided. There are
levels within biology so that we can distinquish the very basic
single-celled organisms from the higher life forms, for example. Likewise,
Wilber's system divides the intellect into several more subtle levels, each
more inclusive and broader than the next. See, this is not dogma. Its just
an idea. And the idea has to be logically consistant and it has to agree
with experience. That's enough to count as intellectual truth. It does not
claim to be the only truth or even the best truth. It just has to work. In
the case of the MOQ, these four levels really work to explain what has been
happening in recorded history, it really works to explain the conflict
between religion and science. It is meant to deal with the problems that we
presently face. This is why I get so crazy over the attempts to re-introduce
tradition and theism. That kind of move strikes me as one that can only be
made by one who does not even understand what the problem is, let alone the
solution. I mean, how many more millions have to die before this conflict is
resolved. Do you not see how murderous the reactionaries have been for the
last several hundred years? Do you not see that the Hitlers, the Stalins,
the Bin Ladins and the Pat Robersons of the world are extremely destructive?
The one thing these wildly different characters all have in common is an
anti-intellectual, anti-Modern stance at the heart of it all. So I'm saying
that one of Pirsig's BEST moves is to make a distinction between the social
and intellectual levels. Its a tool that allows us to sort out all kinds of
issues. Maybe this is what Mark was getting at when he suggested that you
don't understand what you're saying. Its not that your Essentialism will
necessarily lead to genocide of the reintroduction of theocracy in the West,
but it certainly won't help to prevent it. I mean, it seems to me that you
are on the wrong side of evolution.
Ham said:
You balk at the notion of a "prime mover" or creator, and you make a "low
quality thing" out of faith; yet the implicit trust that you and your
cohorts profess for this quaternary blueprint of reality is no less than
what I'd expect if Moses himself had handed it to you on a stone tablet
brought down from Mt. Sinai.
dmb says:
Well, if Pirsig had claimed that his system was derived from a burning bush
rather than from experience you might have a point. But he didn't. And its
not that I take Pirsig's word for it. Its not that I have faith in the word
of "the famous author". I just see that it agrees with experience, with MY
experience. It makes sense. As a student of history I was especially
interested in the rise of Modernity and the impact of the death of God. And
nobody I know of gets a handle on it like he does. Again, this is not the
absolute Truth with a capital "T". Its just true. It agrees with everything
I know about history and with all my experience. This is all we can ask for.
Ham asked:
There are all kinds of epistemological schemes out there. So why is this
one so sacred?
dmb says:
Its not sacred. Its just a good idea. In fact, there are other thinkers who
I find to be just as worthy of respect, who deal with areas where Pirsig
simply doesn't go, but I have found that the MOQ is clear and simple enough
and to work as basic framework into which all my other intellectual heros
can be fitted. This is another reason why I freak out when posters come
along and try to put contrary systems into the MOQ. I mean, its open and
flexible enough to accomodate all kinds of other systems and it seems
obvious to me that there is no good reason to go around trying to put square
pegs into round holes. By analogy, we live in a pluralistic society where we
are supposed to embrace all kinds of perspectives and cultures. There is
lots of room for nearly everyone, but does it make any sense to embrace the
KKK in the name of pluralism? Heck no! Show me a guy who thinks otherwise
and I'll show you a guy who does not understanding the meaning of pluralism.
(This is just an analogy and I'm NOT calling you a racist.)
Ham said:
Well, one problem is that you don't know that "intellect is universally
available". You have no proof that Intellect exists in the abstract (which,
for me, rules out Level 4 as a legitimate static pattern). That phrase
simply means that you can find human beings almost anywhere with the
intellectual capacity to deal abstractly with empirical knowledge -- and to
construct theories like this to explain things about which they have no
empirical knowledge.
dmb says:
I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm just saying that anyone can
grasp an idea just like anyone can grasp a stick. I'm just saying that it
makes sense to view ideas as real - as real as rocks and trees. In fact, it
strikes me as quite absurd to assert otherwise. I mean, try telling Neil
Armstrong that scientific ideas are "just subjective". I'm just saying that
the idea of an intellectual level of reality makes sense and agrees with
experience.
Ham asked:
Would it surprise you to know that I find your assertions about a
multi-level heirarchy of existence arbitrary, ill-defined, and
metaphysically incoherent?
dmb says:
No. Wouldn't surprise me a bit. Its pretty clear to me that you have a
different idea of the meaning of "empiricism" and "metaphysics" and it is
that difference that makes the MOQ look incoherent to you. I mean, you have
a different concept of the most central terms and that is causing lots of
confusion.
dmb asked:
Is there any evidence of any kind WHATSOEVER that we live after death?
Please put it on the table.
Ham replied:
Aside from NDE accounts, many of which have been recorded and published by
reputable physicians, reports of out-of-body experiences by mystics in Tibet
and the Far East, and Christian claims of a resurrected Jesus (none of
which, of course, can be verified empirically), I contend that there is some
evidence in reason and value:
dmb says:
I have to admit that Raymond Moody's work is pretty damn interesting. I met
the guy nearly twenty years ago and was impressed. But its also safe to say
that the jury is still deliberating about the meaning of near death
experiences. Reports of UFO abductions are interesting in the very same way.
Its clear that something is going on and yet there is no evidence of space
ships from other planets. There is only evidence that people think there
are. In both cases we are talking about a very wierd psychological event.
The reports of out of body experiences are equally dreamy. The last one you
mention, the resurrection of Jesus is the weakest of the three. As I
understand it, the notion of a literal ressurection is a tragic
misconception, one that reads myth as fact. (Please take a look at the
recent exchange between Sam and I in the "Orpheus" thread and get back to me
because this post is already way too long.)
Ham asserted:
1) Human beings have a genetic propensity for belief in a supernatural
intelligence, and almost universally place a high value on survival during
and after life. There is no existential or biological reason for this
tendency, except to point man toward a psychic after-life transition.
dmb says:
This gets at one of the most important differences between the theistic
religions of the West and the non-theistic systems of the East. In the East,
the whole point is to let go of one's ego and the fear of death. In the
West, the whole point is to cling desperately to the same. And since the MOQ
is a form of philosophical mysticism and is anti-theistic you are here
presenting the problem as if it were the solution. I mean, you're expressing
a commonly held belief here, but this is exactly the problem. If you had
actually read LILA, Pirsig's advice that we let go of that would be ringing
in your ears. Be a dead man and all that...
Ham asserted:
2) Along with many scientists, I believe that the universe exhibits
intelligent design. This not only implies a primary Designer, but a
teleology for the design. For the design to be meaningful to man, the
purpose of his creation would logically extend beyond finite existence.
dmb says:
The world is such an amazing place that I can almost sympathize and respect
the idea if intelligent design. Almost, but not quite. I think that its
really just creationism in a tuxedo. This answer will be too short to
satisfy, but I think the intelligence and beauty on display is really just a
case of being enthralled with our own interpretations. This is a matter of
falling in love with our own reflections while not even realizing that we're
looking at ourselves.
Ham asserted:
3) Were we to have access to empirical proof of continuity hereafter, it
would violate the principle of man's autonomous freedom; hence such proof is
disallowed by the Intelligent Creator. In fact, the absence of such proof
tends to confirm the concept.
dmb says:
This is the kind of statement that leads me to have such a profound
disrespect for theology. Its completely circular and begs all the questions.
Yuk! "The absense of proof tends to confirm the concept"? That's a heaping
helping of stinky dung. That's exactly the kind of thing that gives
metaphysics a bad name.
Ham asked:
Why are things better now than they were before? Death is a biological end
for all living organisms, but I don't see how many deaths over time improves
things. Is this merely a "feel-good" metaphor, or is there some other
philosophy than MOQ behind it?
dmb says:
Yes. There is an interesting concept that you may not have heard of. Its
called evolution. Its the central principle of all the biological sciences
and can be very well applied to the social sciences as well as intellectual
history.
Later,
dmb
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 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 08:29:23 BST