From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:15:40 BST
Hi Scott:
Scott:
Pirsig (in Lila) describes the S/O divide as a static intellectual
pattern. In SOM, this pattern can be expressed as "everything is a
subject
or an object" (or the idealist and materialist variants). In the MOQ, he
attempts a redescription: subjective is social and intellectual, while
objective is inorganic and biological.
Paul:
To understand why he can say that "the subject-object divide" is a
static intellectual pattern of values we can start with the MOQ
definition of the intellectual level:
"The collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that
stand for patterns of experience."
In the MOQ, experience is value, therefore the definition above can
equally
read:
"The collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that
stand for patterns of value."
To add further clarity, the definition could be rewritten as:
"The collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that
stand for patterns of inorganic, biological, social and intellectual
patterns of value."
So, when Pirsig says that subjects and objects are intellectual patterns
of value, he is saying that subjects and objects are symbols, created in
the brain, that stand for inorganic-biological [objective] and
social-intellectual [subjective] patterns of value.
Scott:
My first complaint is that the MOQ definition is ok for the common use
of
"subjective" and "objective", but lousy for the philosophical use of
"subject" and "object". For example, if I think about what I just wrote,
in
the philosophical use, the "what I just wrote" is an object, but the MOQ
calls it subjective.
Paul:
Hold on, are you saying that words are the same as rocks? Are you really
saying that it is a problem to think that words are subjective?
Scott:
So things get confusing.
Paul:
As far as I can see, the confusion is only caused by different
definitions of "object" being used. In fact, the philosophical
definition is confusing because it fails to distinguish between thought
and sensation. The MOQ makes this distinction clear by referring to
thoughts as intellectual patterns and sensation as biological patterns,
without reference to "objects".
Scott:
However, if it is the case
that the S/O divide is a static intellectual pattern, that confusion can
get
resolved.
Paul:
The confusion is resolved, I think, by being clear in what sense we are
using terms such as "object".
Scott:
My second, and in my opinion unresolvable complaint, is that if we then
inquire into this supposed static intellectual pattern (the S/O divide),
we
run into problems. The first problem is that all my experience is of an
S/O
form.
Paul:
Slow down! The very basis of the MOQ is that this is not the case, and
that there is no empirical basis for this assumption. If you don't see
this, the MOQ is on metaphysical quicksand from the beginning. Do you
agree with the following statements?
"[The MOQ] says that values are not outside of the experience that
logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this
experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or
objects." [Lila p.75]
"This value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any "self" or
any "object" to which it might later be assigned." [Lila p.76]
Straight away you have rejected Pirsig's basic metaphysical premise with
one innocent looking statement - "all my experience is of an S/O form".
If this is the problem you have with the MOQ then we don't get off first
base.
Scott:
I cannot think of my experience in a non-S/O way.
Paul:
Okay, this is slightly different. Value is sensed prior to thought, it
is the empirical reality which gives rise to thought.
"The low value comes first, then the subjective thoughts that include
such things as stove and heat and pain come second. The value is the
reality that brings the thoughts to mind." [Lila p.114]
Scott:
All the MOQ says is
that prior to it all is Quality, and the DQ/SQ split.
Paul:
Now we get to the heart of it!
"All the MOQ says..." In that one little word - "All" - you have
dismissed every word Pirsig has written. You hit the nail on the head
earlier, you cannot "think" yourself out of dualistic thinking, it
happens before thought, but if you deeply and sincerely accept that your
thoughts and perceptions are created by it and that they can start to
form in new ways, you open the door to a new, richer experience of
everyday reality.
Personally (so far), it hasn't been a full blown wall-gazing mystic
experience, more like a less differentiated experience that brings you
out of yourself and closer to something more immediately given. It isn't
all that mysterious, although maybe a little unsettling and occasionally
overwhelming. I sometimes feel that in each instant it's as if reality
is unfolding from "the one" to "the many", and generally our awareness
is of the far end of the process where "the many" is already unfolded.
But in different ways (meditation, relaxation, art, music, drugs(!)
etc.) we can move awareness further up the process and slightly closer
to "the one" and begin to recognise what it feels like. This is why
Pirsig says he chose to illustrate Quality with something as mundane as
fixing a motorcycle, to de-mystify the whole thing. As always, he can
put it in better words than I can...
"Value, the leading edge of reality, is no longer an irrelevant offshoot
of structure. Value is the predecessor of structure. It's the
preintellectual awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality
is preselected on the basis of value, and really to understand
structured reality requires an understanding of the value source from
which it's derived.
One's rational understanding of a motorcycle is therefore modified from
minute to minute as one works on it and sees that a new and different
rational understanding has more Quality. One doesn't cling to old sticky
ideas because one has an immediate rational basis for rejecting them.
Reality isn't static anymore. It's not a set of ideas you have to either
fight or resign yourself to. It's made up, in part, of ideas that are
expected to grow as you grow, and as we all grow, century after century.
With Quality as a central undefined term, reality is, in its essential
nature, not static but dynamic. And when you really understand dynamic
reality you never get stuck. It has forms but the forms are capable of
change.
To put it in more concrete terms: If you want to build a factory, or fix
a motorcycle, or set a nation right without getting stuck, then
classical, structured, dualistic subject-object knowledge, although
necessary, isn't enough. You have to have some feeling for the quality
of the work. You have to have a sense of what's good. That is what
carries you forward. This sense isn't just something you're born with,
although you are born with it. It's also something you can develop. It's
not just "intuition," not just unexplainable "skill" or "talent." It's
the direct result of contact with basic reality, Quality, which
dualistic reason has in the past tended to conceal." [ZMM Ch.24]
Scott:
I have to take this on faith, since in my normal consciousness, I do not
experience this splitting,
just the result, which I inevitably describe in S/O terms (I see the
tree, I
proved the theorem).
Paul:
I suggest you do not have to take it on faith, but I agree that
metaphysics has its limits in what it can give you by reading about it.
When you say you have to "take this on faith" it seems you are expecting
to be able to think your way to an experience of what Pirsig is talking
about. It is immediately apprehended, it is what the orient often starts
with when it teaches. It is what we all start with! It's just that we
are educated into believing that we can always substitute words and
theories for experience and so when somebody says "go experience it" we
often say "can't you tell me what you experienced so I don't have to?"
Continued in pt 2
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 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 15:17:03 BST