Caryl said: > "the only pragmatist element I see in the Metaphysics of Quality is > Pirsig's desire and intention to get to real life - to get to "the > stuffy, hot-ground floor of life as soon as possible" as Matt poetically > puts it. But the actual tool of thought which the concept of Quality > provides is miles away from pragmatism. The problem Pirsig had was there > was no rationalist framework in which his magisterial tool could make > sense and unfold. For, if you say that Quality presupposes an > intelligence in the world in which human reason can share and > participate, because this intelligence partakes of a deep structure > common to both the world and to human minds, where's the dynamic element > in reason itself? It is at this point that Owen Barfield's insights > bring considerable assistance, for Barfield speaks of an evolution of > reason, or rather of an evolution of consciousness. This concept is the > missing key, for it enables us to attach the concepts of Static and > Dynamic Quality to reason itself."
Ron said: As Caryl Johnston states, "The problem Pirsig had was there was no rationalist framework in which his magisterial tool could make sense and unfold" I feel she suspected the same thing as Bo but fail to see the cultural implications that SOM brings to the MoQ table in contrast to the "Big picture" that MoQ ultimately supplies. It's tying these two together that brings the weirdness. Especially when you start making the shifts from SOL to MOQ ...As DmB said "things get weird." But I truly believe in my "softened" explanation, it works. dmb says: I should ask Caryl rather than you, but I'd like to know what "the problem" is, exactly. I don't see it. What the heck is a "rationalist framework" and why does the MOQ need one to "make sense and unfold"? I'm not even sure what she means by "unfold". Also, she's talking about Barfield's evolutionary ideas as if Pirsig didn't already make evolution central to the MOQ. I don't think there is a "missing key" as far as that goes. And Pirsig not only says that the dynamic can be found in the intellect but that its the MOST dynamic of levels. The formation of the hypothesis in ZAMM, the levels in Lila, the paper on that describes physicists as creative artists. Some of the MOQ's key intellectual insights came out of that peyote meeting, etc.. There is no shortage of ways in which the 4th level is a dynamic, evolving thing. There seems to be a misconception about presupposing intelligence in the world too. Maybe I'll ask Caryl about that her "rationalist framework", but I suspect its a fake problem. Thanks _________________________________________________________________ Shed those extra pounds with MSN and The Biggest Loser! http://biggestloser.msn.com/ 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/
