MD Illusions--Richard Bach's creatures

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 22:38:47 BST

  • Next message: David MOREY: "Re: MD science and the humanities"

    Yale and all,

    I don't really hold Pirsig in that high of esteem. I agree he was an explorer
    and I appreciate all the insights he lent to me, but I don't think of him as any
    more than someone groping his way through the world who happened to have written
    a couple of nice pieces of literature. I have no desire into making his MOQ
    into a new metaphysics and I don't really want to be part of any movement that
    does. However, I have learned to appreciate the value of learning from you all.
     I presently place a higher value upon following the many diverse discussions
    than I do upon memorizing lines and quotes from Pirsig. Someday, I will read
    ZMM and Lila again, and I will find these books refreshing, new and inspiring
    once more. But, for now, I value the insights I gain through reading new books
    as well as following and participating in a few discussions on this site much
    more. Pirsig was not meant to remain static. I don't think he put down any
    final words. He just continued on with the long line of work done before him.
    Now, we all (not just us here, but we ALL) must continue to add on to this work,
    not memorize and live are lives according to it.

    There are too many paths to explore to become knowledgeable about all of them.
    It is also difficult to be a generalist and have a grasp of most of them. But,
    certainly, whatever path we choose to inquiry, it must be a path never taken
    before. That is why I don't want to follow Pirsig, Budda, Jesus, Suzuki, or
    anyone else. I think it is best to just keep going. Sometimes the hard paths
    are hard for a reason and nothing is lost by choosing an easier one as long as
    it has not been explored before. And there is no reason to worry about if it
    has been explored before as long as we are following our individual gut
    instincts, or our bliss.

    I wrote this many months ago on the spur of the moment when I should have been
    completing my PhD in economics. I ultimately decided not to continue on with my
    dissertation because it meant having to repeat the work of many others who had
    come before me and I was looking for a new path. I posted it to the list at the
    time, but no one commented. Perhaps, because it was not that good, but also,
    perhaps, because no one was very familiar with me at the time as many now are
    not familiar with Yale. I am posting it again, not because I am searching for
    comments or because I am offering another path to explore. Rather, I offer it
    again to give a better understanding of my interpretation of Pirsig's work. I
    might change a few parts if I rewrote it today, but I think it still captures
    the essence of what I have taken away from Pirsig.

    Regards,
    Andy

    To MOQ's and all,

    This is a short metaphor for Pirsig's MOQ. I realize the Lila Squad and MOQ'rs
    have been discussing the MOQ a long while and a new interpretation is probably
    not going to go very far, but I had an insight while reflecting on a private
    conversation I had with Matt (the endorphin). I am sharing it because I like to
    contribute periodically to the discussion here and I think it might help clarify
    some of the problems I have with the MOQ for others with similar hang-ups. The
    inspiration for this comes from a little parable that opens Richard Bach's
    "Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah" (the parable is in the
    beginning in the hand-written journal entry). I first read Illusions many years
    ago and it probably had a greater impact on my life and worldview than Pirsig's
    ZMM or Lila (any "Bach squads" or "Reluctant Messiahs.org" out there in
    cyberspace?). I think this might fall under what Matt has called "radically
    interpreting Pirsig." No analogy can ever be perfect, and I am sure there will
    be some comments finding the faults in this one. It never hurts to throw
    something new out there, however if it helps someone gain a new foothold.

    The parable is about these creatures clinging to the bottom of a fast moving
    river. It is the whole thrust of their lives, clinging. They cling all day
    long. It is the only way they know how to live. There are stories of
    creatures that have stopped clinging and nobody ever hears from them again.
    There are myths of another land downstream and people who can live in the fast
    moving current without clinging to the bottom, but these are just stories or
    myths. Nobody really dares to stop clinging to the bottom. Clinging to the
    bottom has its disadvantages, but it is all the creatures know how to do and the
    only way they are taught to live.

    I always loved the way this book begins. This parable struck me as very
    profound. I have forgot about it over the years, but somehow it sprang to my
    mind while walking home from the coffee shop and thinking of the conversation
    with Matt and other things concerned with the whole MOQ crowd.

    One thing that always bothered me about Lila was the levels. I loved Pirsig's
    remarks on quality and his splitting it in two: static and dynamic quality.
    But I had a hard time buying his analogy about the levels: inorganic,
    biological, social and intellectual. Each level emerges out of the level below
    and is thus interpreted as superior or higher quality than the one below. I
    think he just chose a bad metaphor. I know what he was getting at, but the
    metaphor does not work for me.

    I have been interested in emergence and complex systems for some time, because
    of the work I do in economics. In complex systems there are bifurcations where
    a system branches out or a new pattern develops due to an increase in the flow
    of energy or materials through an open system. It is what Prigogine calls a
    dissipative structure. It explains the decrease in entropy for a biological
    system. Anyway, the biological emerges out of the inorganic. This is the
    origin of life. Evolution comes along and intelligence is selected as organisms
    adapt to their surroundings. Organisms with better "internal models" (John
    Holland's term) have a greater chance for survival. Eventually we get some
    organisms that are pretty damn intelligent (those would be us). When
    intelligent creatures interact through language, society is created. Thus, in
    the view of complexity, we have: inorganic-biological-intelligence-society.
    You see I can't buy Pirsig's analogy because it doesn't fit my paradigm, but yet
    I am digging the whole thing about dynamic and static quality. I also
    understand, somewhat, where he is coming from with the idea of intellectual
    level. I think democracy is a good thing, free markets for private goods, and
    other institutions too, but these, it seems to me, belong in the social level.
    He has not created a very good metaphor for what he is trying to describe. It
    doesn't work (for me). It never can.

    In the caffeine-induced state while walking home, I think, I discovered a
    solution. Bach's parable of the creatures is the better analogy. Dynamic
    quality is the stream. Static quality is clinging. When we cling to the bottom
    we are in the social level (most of us). In the social level, where most people
    cling, the current is slow and the water is murky with sediment. Most of us can
    cling to something and let go and cling to something new, never leaving this
    shallow murky pool. We can just sort of wade from one spot to another grabbing
    on to the selection of philosophies or worldviews put before us. But sometimes,
    someone stops clinging and escapes the pool to venture off downstream, like
    Pirsig. What happens is they get bounced along the rocks by the current, until
    they find something they can grab on to, because it hurts to be bounced on the
    rocks. They are clinging again but there is nobody else around and the current
    is very fast. Once you stop clinging and let the current sweep you away it is
    very difficult to swim back upstream where everyone else is clinging. So Pirsig
    starts collecting other creatures that have stopped clinging upstream and are
    now bouncing on the rocks toward him. It feels much better for these creatures
    to cling again to Pirsig and it is refreshing to be in the faster current where
    the water is cleaner than where everyone else was clinging before. It also
    feels better for Pirsig to share this new piece of river bottom with other
    creatures. Eventually more creatures join them until a large group of creatures
    are clinging to Pirsig and sediment begins to fill in the gaps and the current
    slows down and the water becomes, once again, murky. The creatures are back
    again in the social level.
      
    This continues on. Solitary creatures let go (stop clinging) and the current
    carries them away. Eventually they cling to a new spot and others join them
    there. Society marches on downstream through the interaction of static and
    dynamic quality. The intellectual level is only the few brave sorts leading the
    pack, being bounced along the rocks. It is dangerous business leading the pack
    also, because letting go from society can also mean never getting back. What if
    you find a new spot to cling to where no other creatures want to join you? This
    is insanity. It is a very thin line between genius and insanity, as most of us
    know.

    Up near the mouth of the stream is the biological level and, you know what, the
    current is fast there also and the water is clean. The biological level is not
    any better or worse than the social or intellectual level. It is just further
    upstream. Clinging to the biological level feels good. It feels better than
    the social level where the current is the slowest and the water is dirty. But
    to go from the biological to the intellectual you need to go through the social
    level. There is an upstream and a downstream, but there is not a purpose, other
    than not to stand still and cling forever. There is no guarantee that what is
    downstream is better than the spot where we are currently clinging to (perhaps
    Niagara Falls is up ahead, we won't know until we get there). We just know we
    have to keep moving and that is what society does; slowly it moves – with the
    current.

    DMB and Platt, and other "unfallen" priests, think the MOQ is the answer
    because the current is still swift there and the water is cleaner than where the
    rest of society is. They don't want to let go of Pirsig knowing there are rocks
    waiting in the fast current and the rocks can be painful. The MOQ is static
    quality. Mapping Lila with an index gives more for new creatures to grab onto
    and muddies the water. Is this a worthwhile project, or should they let go
    again letting dynamic quality sweep them away? You see the trick is to be able
    to swim in dynamic quality and avoid the rocks. But this means a life away from
    society - all alone. An exhilarating life it might be, but there will be nobody
    to share it with. The ones who are able to do this are the mystics DMB
    associates the MOQ with. Pirsig wants to live with the mystics - in the stream,
    without clinging. But this is not describable. Once, you decide to put your
    experience into words you begin clinging again.
     
    Here is the clincher - Language is static quality. Life (experience--the
    stream) is dynamic quality. When we cling we hold on to a description of
    reality. Many things, such as quality, are beyond description. They are
    indefinable, but that does not mean they do not exist, as Pirsig makes clear.
    Quality is a metaphor, a word, for a particular aspect of reality we cannot ever
    properly define. Pirsig has split this word into two, static and dynamic. The
    static is a word or a sentence we tend to cling to as a description. The static
    continually changes over time as we attempt to redefine reality over and over
    again. The dynamic, DQ, is another word or metaphor (thus DQ is also static
    quality – the word or phrase) describing what can't be put into words. (IMHO,
    what Pirsig has merely done here is put off his investigation into the meaning
    of quality by splitting it into two and leaving DQ undefined)
      
    Language is the defining characteristic of society. Without an ability to
    communicate, the distinguishing feature defining humans as "intelligent" does
    not exist. Using our large brains purely for perceiving the world and storing
    the data will not allow us to react to these perceptions without any
    self-reflection without languauge. Neanderthals had a larger brain cavity than
    modern humans, but the positioning of their larynx didn't allow them a capacity
    for sound modulation in order for speech to develop. They (admittedly only –
    arguably) had greater computational powers and storage capacity than us, but
    they lacked a complex language consisting of the many symbols and characters
    needed for describing reality.

    Language is a gift of an individual's culture or society and thus all
    descriptions of reality are filtered through the lenses of an individual's
    society. Letting go of society or no longer clinging means no longer
    perceiving reality through these lenses. In order for an individual to begin
    clinging again they must find or develop a new grammar, or vocabulary, and this
    is what Pirsig did with the MOQ and what many continue to do at MOQ.org. There
    is no guarantee this is a better description of reality than the previous
    description further upstream, but it is surely not a perfectly accurate
    description. All we can say is it is a new description. The perfect
    description can only be known by letting go again and swimming in the stream (or
    dancing with the wu-li masters, pick your metaphor).

    I can imagine sharing a life with someone else in dynamic quality, but you
    wonder if this might only be a pipedream. Two people swimming along in the
    current smiling at one another without being able to put into words their
    experiences. Each just content to keep swimming along into new uncharted
    territories. I suppose Utopia would be a society of people who are no longer
    clinging and letting the current carry them along together. This would not be a
    society, though. At least not a society as we know it. Perhaps, it is life as
    Neanderthals knew it.
      
    I think I am content to just bounce along the bottom only letting go for short
    periods of time. I enjoyed clinging to Pirsig for a short while, but time to
    move on and find someone new to cling on to.

    Andy

    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 Sep 12 2003 - 22:42:59 BST