From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed May 04 2005 - 23:58:45 BST
Hi Ham,
> If Quality is experience, it is proprietary to individual awareness and is
> something sensed or observed. That means it is not an abstract "universal
> principle".
What you are asserting is that experience belongs to a subject. What
Pirsig asserts is that experience is prior to your intellectual conception
of a subject with its companion star, object. Think of it this way: like
spirit, experience was around long before you or I or other "biological
organism" became it's vessel.
> Chapter 5 contains other statements that I find simplistic and
> philosophically unsound. Read the pararagraph following your quotation,
> for example:
>
> "A metaphysics must be divisible, definable, and knowable, or there isn't
> any metaphysics. Since metaphysics is essentially a kind of dialectical
> definition and since Quality is essentially outside definition, this means
> that a 'Metaphysics of Quality' is essentially a contradition in terms, a
> logical absurdity."
>
> Pirsig's repetition of "essentially" here (presumably to excuse his
> imprecision) does not excuse the fact that his assertion is wrong.
> Philosophers from Plato to Hegel have postulated metaphysical theories of a
> divided universe arising from an "unknowable" holistic source, defining
> terms and using analogies as appropriate to express such ontologies.
An "unknowable" source is by definition prior to intellectual concepts. I
don't see how this differs from Pirsig's Quality.
> There
> have been metaphysics based on Animism, Goodness and Vital Force. I don't
> see that a "metaphysics of Quality" is a contradition in terms, or why a
> Quality-based ontology is a "logical absurdity". If Pirsig wants to be
> credited for a theory of universal Quality, he should be expected to
> develop his theory as a metaphysical thesis. Alluding to a heirarchy of
> Quality levels in a work of fiction only obfuscates the theory. He may see
> this as a way to avoid more precise explication, but would Plato have
> refused to define his "essences", or Sartre his "Being"?
I wish you would read Lila from cover to cover because it's obvious that
Pirsig doesn't refuse to define Quality nor does he fail to provide a
metaphysical thesis. The fact that you don't accept the manner in which he
presents it is neither here nor there. If it was written as poem or stage
play, it would still be authentic.
> My point is simply that Quality defined as "direct experience" is
> inconsistent with "the primary empirical reality of the world". Without a
> metaphysics of Quality, there is no ontology to support Pirsig's theory.
Pirsig's theory IS an ontology, defined as "a particular theory about the
nature of being" (Merriam-Webster). It doesn't need "support." It stands
on its own.
> > First of all, the MOQ is atheistic.
> >
> > The materialists' faith in the explanatory power of
> > "mechanisms" is tantamount to a Christian's faith in God.
>
> Since I take it that you are a Christian, how do you reconcile your belief
> in an atheistic philosophy? (I find this a curious anomaly in both you and
> Sam.)
I'm a Christian in name only. For me, Quality and God are synonymous as a
transcendent and immanent creative power. I do enjoy Christian music and
art immensely, so attend a local Methodist church regularly. (The minister
gives very artful sermons.)
> > Finally, what in your opinion, would
> > be at a higher level than experience?
> Platt, I don't think in terms of levels or patterns because they are
> relative constructs of the mind.
I don't know how you can think without patterns or "relative constructs of
the mind." But, that's just an aside.
> But, as you must have noted, I think
> finite experience is a minimalistic and distorted view of reality. Human
> intelligence derived from proprietary experience is designed specifically
> to accommodate the biological organism to a space/time world. Within that
> framework, we apply the tools of science and technology to achieve
> universal pragmatic goals.
I don't know what you mean by "finite" experience. Experience to me is
an infinite force, like electromagnetism. Also, by "proprietary" I assume
you mean experience can never be separate from a subject or some
"biological organism." That presupposes a subject/object metaphysics.
> Man is not programmed by Nature to comprehend ultimate reality, but as
> human beings we have the capacity to sense the Value of what is beyond our
> grasp. The essential Source of that Value is what imbues us all with the
> desire to transcend our physical existence. Religion and philosophy have
> evolved in our culture as expressions of this uniquely human need. One is
> static and faith-driven; the other is dynamic and intellect-driven.
> Individual belief systems are a synthesis that represents some fusion of
> the two.
If you can comprehend experience absent thought, you can comprehend
ultimate reality. It's what's right in front of your nose, everyday.
Perhaps if you'll read my essay, "Say Hello to Now" on moq.org, you'll
have a better understanding of what I'm talking about.
Of course, I could be wrong.
Best,
Platt
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 : Thu May 05 2005 - 00:52:13 BST