From: Mati Palm-Leis (mpalm@merr.com)
Date: Wed Jan 28 2004 - 12:38:32 GMT
Paul
Mati previously said:
Yes, when those thought patterns are based on the precepts of SOM.
Pirsig notes in regards to the fictitious "man", "Like 'substance' they
can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms for
collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
their own." Lila 178. When we refer to the "Mind" in such a manner which
is easy to do, it leads us down the garden path back to SOM.
Paul:
I don't see why using "mind" necessarily leads us back to SOM. Mind and
matter are just levels of static quality in the MOQ, with neither being
held as fundamental.
Mati:
Ok, I might be sensitive to the issue, perhaps because for the past 2500
years of discussion about the "mind" rooted in the SOM tradition, allows
the mind to be this ethereal/mystic entity. This creates a Pandora's box
that the subjective reality is beyond comprehension and definition and
found only in the mind. Then we next turn to ideas like the
"consciousness" and "self awareness" as aspects of the mind and we
slowly get sucked back to SOMish thinking.
Mati previously asked:
What might be some of those intellectual patterns which enable SOM?
Paul:
Rhetoric.
Mati: Rhetoric. The dictionary defines it as "The art or science of
communicating with words."
Hmmmm, before I start I want to share short personal incident. Last
spring when I started reading MD there was reference to the "Annotated"
Pirsig. As I have mentioned I am Dysgraphic and for three weeks I had
personally read it as the "Anointed" Pirsig. For the longest time I was
trying to figure if the "Anointed" Pirsig was reference to slam him or
MD was some kind of cult. When I finally caught my error I had to laugh.
I share this because I have a tremendous respect for Pirsig and his work
and as DMB has noted Pirsig has shared his thinking process that has
lead to his insight. I say this because I am going to be a little
critical of Pirsig approach to "Intellect", and I do this with
understanding Pirsig has brought us so far to the point where we can be
critical and yet respectful.
Tonight I reread the letter Pirsig's sent to you. I haven't done so
since you first shared it. It is truly a gift for which I thank you for
sharing.
He wrote: "Perhaps you can pass all this along to the Lila Squad with
the caveat that this is not a Papal Bull, as some would have it, or just
plain bull, as others will see it, but merely another opinion on the
subject that it is hoped will help."
I value his opinion, however this letter doesn't provide a rational that
he has provided in the past with ZMM and LILA. He does write, "From a
Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of everyday affairs that one
leaves behind upon becoming enlightened and then rediscovers from a
Buddha's point of view. But for anyone who really wants to know what
intellect is I think definitions are not the place to start. Since
definitions are a part of the intellectual level the only person who
will understand a definition of intellect is a person who already is
intellectual and thus has the answer before he ever asks."
I get what he is driving at and I believe he is correct. However the
same could be said before LILA was written. MOQ defines reality in a way
that accounts for so much in life that is real. Far more than SOM ever
did.
In LILA, one of my favorite lines Pirsig writes: "Phaedrus had once
called metaphysics "the high country" of mountain climbing. It takes a
lot of effort to get there and more effort when you arrive, but unless
you can make the journey you are confined to one valley of thought in
which the facts of life. This high country passage through the
Metaphysics of Quality allowed entry to another valley of thought in
which the facts of life get a much richer interpretation. The valley
spreads out into a huge fertile plain of understanding."
It is in this spirit that I question Pirsig letter. Pirsig reference to
Zen Buddhism seems to be a current theme in his thinking which he is
entitled to. But I gather that Zen Buddhism is a spiritual definition
of reality and Metaphysics is a rational definition of reality. This
doesn't mean that Zen Buddhism is irrational but rather non-rational in
the sense it doesn't use rational to define reality. As I have noted Zen
Buddhism seemed to sidestep SOM altogether and as Khoo has mentioned
that the "Far" East noted a S/O divide of sorts of which I know little
about. In any case I sense that perhaps Pirsig is trying to
reconciliate Metaphysics and Zen Buddhism in his thought process. I
don't know if it can be done or if this is a sound approach. In any case
I point this out that I am strictly approaching his comments from a
metaphysical approach which perhaps I am perhaps marginally qualified to
do.
Pirsig writes: "Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as
biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a sign that stands
for them and these signs are manipulated independently of the patterns
they stand for. "Intellect" can then be defined very loosely as the
level of independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics
can be described as the rules of this sign manipulation."
I am guessing this is where your "Rhetoric" might come into play, as
"independently manipulable signs". Then Pirsig notes, "But if one
studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of
primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously absent.
The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns and
nothing else." Perhaps an example of this is the Iliad of Homer.
Reading a brief passage if the Iliad one see it is an example of
"Rhetoric". The Greek mythos was
part of the natural progression of defining or reflecting who we are and
what is real in the social context. Why does the thunder come from the
heavens etc. They provided socially anthropomorphized answers. Then
there are the early Greeks philosophers, Thales, Anaximander,
Anaximenes, and others that tried something different. They tried to
define reality as a rational thought beyond the social reality. Not
until Aristotle Subject/Object split was the intellectual latch provided
for the capacity for defining who we are in terms of what is real based
on rational thought.
Interesting Pirsig writes: "I'm not sure if all of this defines the
intellectual level any better than before, or if any such definition is
useful. It may be that the intellectual level cannot describe itself any
better than an eye can directly see itself, but has to find itself in
mirrors of one sort or another." The comment about mirrors caught a
natural personal interest for me. I struggled for some time with Bo's
SOLAQI approach to intellect. For what ever reason I was approaching
intellect with the same narrow indicators, such as symbols, of what I
thought was intellect was. But there is a broad context to consider and
that is the natural tendency to define reality and who we are. When we
based that tendency on the S/O rationality our picture of ourselves
changed drastically from how we defined who we are from the mythos or
social reality. As I mentioned before that Mankind through SOM has been
reaping the benefits of the S/O divide while suffering the consequences
of "M" and that is a totally different and worthy discussion in itself.
Mati previsouly said:
I will take a stab at this and it won't be pretty. intellectual patterns
are a genuine reflection of who we are. Objective Knowledge by "itself"
does not reflect anything of who we are. Yet there are times we use
Objective Knowledge to contrast to the Subjective reality to create that
reflection. And that reflection becomes the value of intellect.
Paul:
I have a problem with the term "objective knowledge," which is summed
up....
If you mean that knowledge of objects (i.e. inorganic and biological
patterns) on its own doesn't reflect anything of who we are then I can
kind of see what you are saying. However, as Pirsig says, it is
experience i.e. Quality which generates all beliefs, not objects.
Mati: Metaphysics is the rational ghost, but is it real? I say the
answer is "Mu". The point is all beliefs,(Inorg. Bio. Soc. Intell.) in
some way define who we are and what is real. Pirsig is correct that
Quality and experience generate beliefs that define who we are. Beliefs
don't replace experience and definitions don't replace quality, hence
the DQ/SQ divide and the beauty of MOQ.
Sincerely,
Mati
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 Jan 28 2004 - 12:40:56 GMT