From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 04:22:24 BST
Matt,
[Matt:]> A pragmatic interpretation of mysticism says that words are
sometimes incapabable of dealing with the experiences we have. So what do
we do? We make up new words, we start fudging the meaings of old words, we
use _metaphors_ for that which cannot be conveyed literally. All of the
words you can use to describe, point at, convey the meaning of mysticism
("mystical reality, the void, eternity, the undifferentiated aesthetic
continuum, the primary reality, the pre intellectual reality, the father of
all, the womb of creation, the ground of being") all ultimately fail at
being literal, at conveying a meaning that is assimilable into an
established language game. That's what it means for DQ and Quality to be
undefined. They are metaphors, and also new terms.
>
> The terms "DQ" and "Quality" themselves, like all terms, ultimately fail.
Simply saying the words are an attempt to literalize the unliteralizable.
So, when I say that DQ is a compliment we pay after the fact, I'm saying
that Dynamic Quality is a static pattern that we use to try and make sense
of an experience that does not make sense within any established pattern.
When we say something was Dynamic as a term of endorsement, it is a
compliment because there is no way, at that point, to explain why we value
that experience. If we could explain it, that would mean it was assimilable
into a language game and so not really Dynamic. As we become able to
explain it, it loses its Dynamic status and becomes static, and so
referencing a now static pattern as Dynamic references the past origin of
that pattern. Saying a new static pattern was Dynamic is paying it a
compliment, saying that its good that it originated.
>
> So when you say "we are suppose[d] to pretend a word, a phrase, a concept
isn't real" I think you yourself are missing the point of mysticism. I know
you don't think that a word, phrase, or concept gets at mysticism in any
infallible way because if you did, mystics would jump all over you. I'm not
pretending a word or concept is unreal. I'm not even pretending an
experience is unreal. I'm shifting the meaning of the words, phrases, and
concepts we use to try and cope with mystical experiences so that certain
purely philosophical problems do not arise. And I think my interpretation
loses nothing of mysticism's significance.
[Scott:]
Hence my adoption of the logic of contradictory identity, and why I think
that the MOQ is ultimately a failure. Again, I want to refer to Robert
Magliola's distinction between 'centric' and 'differential' mystical
"explanations". Centric explanations are like those you refer to above, and
Pirsig's Quality, DQ, and SQ terminology is a perfect example. As such it
leads the MOQ into error, by stating that mystical experience is "pure DQ",
which leads to the gnostic consequence that SQ is evil, since it gets in the
way of experiencing pure DQ..
Now I don't really think that that (SQ is evil) is what Pirsig thinks, but
why not? Differential mystical philosophy avoids this from the get-go by
*starting* with contradictory identity. It doesn't allow the reification of
anything (and hence avoids what Rorty doesn't like about metaphysics) in
one's terminology.
- 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 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 04:32:37 BST