From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Oct 21 2005 - 03:48:08 BST
David M (Matt K mentioned),
> Scott:
All through ZMM and Lila is the
> presumption that intellect takes one away from DQ (e.g., the hot stove
> example).
DM said
: I think you are wrong and that you disagree with a Pirsig of your own
making.
Scott:
I am not saying that all that Pirsig talks about is the superiority of DQ
over intellect. I am saying that he frequently talks of intellect as
covering up, or taking one away from DQ, as in the hot stove example. The
painful sensation is seen as "pure", while the thinking about it seen as, I
guess, impure, derivative, and so on -- in a word, seen as inferior. Why
isn't it also seen as "pure"? It is value/experience just as much as the
pain. As I've said many times, I think Pirsig falls into that way of
thinking about thinking as a consequence of his mystical indoctrination
(see below). (BTW, in this case I agree with Matt that we should think of
neither as "pure", that is, do away with the immediate/mediate distinction.)
DM said:
The equal ontological status of all the levels goes against this, there is
however a sense in which SQ does allow you to ignore DQ, and above all
SOM as one possible intellectual form of SQ is particularly good at blocking
out DQ, where SOM is sort of fixed on the SQ pole. You know this,
and I think Pirsig does too, the pushing aside all SOM to get back to
seeing DQ is just a necessary step. Then we come back and see all SQ
in relationship with DQ and the creative-active-erotic aspect of DQ
is -just look at what has been achieved out of nothing- is of course
also intelligent in a non human form.
Scott:
It is certainly the case that some intellectual SQ goes on with considering
the reality of DQ, notably scientific materialism and logical positivism
(but I agree, again, with Matt that SOM is a misnomer for that which the MOQ
is trying to get beyond, but that's a separate issue). And it is the case
that most of our thinking is pretty damn static. But all it takes is one
"Aha!" experience to understand that it is also dynamic. Taking the MOQ as
it is given in Lila, one can't say that an "Aha!" experience is intellectual
DQ. Instead, creative thinking gets twisted into the formula of "responding
to DQ".
You say "pushing aside all SOM to get back to seeing DQ is just a necessary
step." Well, yes, one needs to realize that any formula is limited, but
again I think it is a mystical misapprehension to speak of "seeing DQ". I
don't deny that many mystics report events of this sort, but one of them,
Franklin Merrell-Wolff, went on to have a second event in which he realized
that the first (an absence of all SQ) was itself subtly limited, in that it
differentiated the pure DQ state from the DQ/SQ state -- it opposed a
relative state with an absolute state. So while it is not necessarily a bad
thing to preach that one should try to "stop SQ to see DQ" in all its glory,
it is a bad thing to base a metaphysics on. Unfortunately, this is what
Pirsig has done. As such, it is not hopelessly wrong, but it does need
correction.
- Scott
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 : Fri Oct 21 2005 - 04:53:13 BST