In a message dated 6/10/00 11:04:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The Quality he was talking about through his 2 books --- the
> 'ultimate' Quality, is bigger than language and can never be contained in
> words (or nouns)... somewhere in ZMM he reminds us that when you think
> you're talking about Quality you're always talking about something less.
I agree with this very much. While language is our only means of
communicating certain concepts, it is limiting. I also think the limiting
nature of language has an unfortunate side-effect: it limits our perception
of reality. It limits what we are willing to believe.
For example, I've had a few debates lately with some folks who just can't
seem to wrap their minds around the concept that Morality is real. They think
(quite naturally, thanks to our culture) that Morality is a human invention,
while Truth is real. I tell them it's exactly the opposite. And the
predictable knee-jerk reaction follows. They just can't accept the concept
that Morality is a real aspect of nature, while Truth is just a human
conception.
When I tell them Morality is real, they ask: "How do you define Morality?"
The question presents me with a problem. As anyone who has read LILA knows,
Pirsig considers Quality and Morality to be the same thing. Exactly the same
thing. And Quality is undefinable. So I usually answer their question by
saying the true essence of Morality is undefinable, yet we all have an
intuitive sense of what it is. An intuitive sense of what is right and wrong.
My answer leaves them unsatisfied and they start throwing hypotheticals at
me, usually involving the different conceptions of Morality in other
cultures, how does a pedophile interpret Morality, etc. And more often than
not they walk away feeling they have disproved my proposal that Morality is
real. They ask questions like, "Does a dog have Morality?" And they become
incredulous when I answer, "Yes, dogs have Morality. So do individual cells."
When I tell them that individual cells have Morality, they think I'm nuts.
They can't pry their minds free from the concept that Morality was invented
by humans and restricted to humans. And since I can't offer the concrete
"reasons" and "definitions" they won't be persuaded. This is a prime example
of the modern human mind; the modern mind has become so thoroughly dependent
on reason that it won't accept anything that doesn't conform to reason.
They scoff when I try to tell them that intuition is just as important, if
not more so, than reason. To them, intuition is just a primitive biological
function that serves reason. I tell them reason is just a tool. An
extraordinarily valuable tool, yes, but just a tool. Like the wrench on the
cover of ZMM. A wrench is just a tool. The tool may loosen a lot of nuts and
bolts, but it won't fit every nut and bolt. Some nuts and bolts won't conform
to the size and shape of the particular wrench you happen to be using. Do you
see what I'm getting at? Not ALL aspects of reality can conform to the tool
of reason.
Another analogy: you'll never be able to prove to a blind man, not with any
amount of logic or reason, that colors exist. He's blind to color. He might
have faith that colors exist, but he'll never see conclusive evidence.
Likewise, logic and reason will always be blind to certain aspects of
reality. And intuition is our only link to these aspects of reality that
reason is blind to.
Not even the words of Einstein impress them very much: "The intuitive mind is
a sacred gift and the rational mind a faithful servant. We have created a
society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."
Jon
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
