[Platt] Is the sun real? Is the wind real? Is a germ real? I would say yes. What say you?
[Arlo] I would say they are inorganic and/or biological patterns that we "know" via intellectual patterns we use to describe our experience with them. [Platt] Yes, dreams are illusions. A dollar in my pocket is real. Myself is real. Otherwise who dreams? Who has dollars? Who has pockets? Without the self, nothing. No "thing." [Arlo] How are dreams "illusions", but memories of the past "real"? The "self" is a thought, albeit it a "meta-thought", that gives order and structure to our categorized experiences, without which we'd be in a constant stream of immediate experience. As such, the "self" has a real, pragmatic value. But, as I've said, the "self" does not hold some "ueber-reality" apart from dreams, memories, thoughts, or ideas. It is as "real" as they are, but also as "illusory". This is what Einstein meant when he said, ""A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." (Einstein) Subject (selves) and objects are brought into concurrent, simultaneous existence by the Quality Event. Indeed, Pirsig reminds us that the illusion of "separateness" comes only after, "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical." (ZMM). This is what I mean when I say the "self" is illusory, and that ties together Einstein's thinking with Pirsig's. The separateness we experience is the illusion, and hence the "self" as some sort of "forever-apart" reality in-itself is illusion. But, this illusion has significant pragmatic ramifications for allowing "us" to "act" in a way that transforms the world as-experienced. [Platt] Where I come from, "always" is an absolute. And to say "truth is not an absolute" is an absolute and thus self-contradictory. [Arlo] And, a road you act once again naively shocked to see, paradox, contradiction and recursion lie at the heart of any metaphorical system. It is absolutely unavoidable. All it "proves" is that language and reason are mirrors of experience, unavoidably distorted reflections. And we can move on pragmatically making use of the tools we have, but we have to, in the final analysis, recognize that are just that... "tools". [Platt] Do you deny that intellect and art (human characteristics) are at the top of Pirsig's moral hierarchy? [Arlo] Of course "intellectual patterns" are atop Pirsig's hierarchy of static patterns. But what I see as the real value to Quality is in its final dissolution of the "self" and "thing" into a moment of "grooving". "Phædrus felt that at the moment of pure Quality perception, or not even perception, at the moment of pure Quality, there is no subject and there is no object. There is only a sense of Quality that produces a later awareness of subjects and objects. At the moment of pure quality, subject and object are identical. This is the tat tvam asi truth of the Upanishads, but it's also reflected in modern street argot. "Getting with it," "digging it," "grooving on it" are all slang reflections of this identity." (Pirsig) [Platt] Do you deny that Pirsig cites freedom as the highest moral value? [Arlo] I would say that I agree with Pirsig that "freedom" is itself simply "a purely negative goal". Pirsig writes in the afterward to ZMM, "This book offers another, more serious alternative to material success. It's not so much an alternative as an expansion of the meaning of "success" to something larger than just getting a good job and staying out of trouble. And also something larger than mere freedom." (Pirsig) And I think if the MOQ teaches us anything, its that "freedom" is born out of "order". The two MUST be in balance. And, I side with the MOQ's idea that our concepts are always culturally-rooted. The Native Americans (to use a broad generality) would likely see many aspects of our modern lives as "unfree". We are quatered off from "private property", while they could roam, swim, hunt and fish wherever they so chose. The modern notion that "freedom" is inherently tied with material acquisition is nonsense. [Platt] Then Pirsig must boggle your mind. "The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience, and economy of explanation. The Metaphysics of Quality satisfies these." (Lila, 8) [Arlo] And yet its central term is undefined. Just listen to Ham's critiques, the MOQ is not a wholly rational metaphysics. It is an attempt to build some rational understanding around a mystic and undefinable "thing". [Platt] Pirsig influenced by Buddhism? Yes. The MOQ a Buddhist philosophy? No. [Arlo] The central tenants of the MOQ are drawn from, and are tied to, Zen Buddhism. While it is not a "Buddhist philosophy" in the sense that most Buddhists don't bother with metaphysics, it nonetheless begins with the primary notion of Quality as Buddha and moves from there. I'm excising all your political and distortive bullshit. If you really want to get into it, create a "Why the rhetoric 'libs hate freedom' is a moronic con" thread, or perhaps "Why I am suddenly squalking 'tactics of moveon.org' like a good parrot" thread. I'll think about contributing. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
