the individual is borne of the intellectual level - it is an idea. the idea of oneself as an autonomous agent evolves from and opposes the purely social (bicameral?) level of consciousness....which operates by the control of the collective via a deity, king etc.
--- On Mon, 7/7/08, david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: david buchanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [MD] Static Self > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Received: Monday, 7 July, 2008, 5:46 AM > Ham said to Craig and Marsha: > Pirsig...has put man in a cosmic "vat" by denying > him the autonomy of free choice and self-determination. > ...the MoQist view of what man is -- not an entity, not a > self, not even a proprietary subject, but patterns of value > in a field of quality. There is no "free agency" > in such a construct because the "field" itself is > the operand of the patterns. The static patterns, in other > words, are programmed by DQ. > > "To the extent that one's behavior is controlled > by static patterns of quality it is without choice. But to > the extent that one follows Dynamic Quality, which is > undefinable, one's behavior is free." (Robert > Pirsig in Lila) > > Ham continued: > I've been unable to find any references to > individuality, individualism, individual freedom, > self-determination, proprietary awareness, or personal > autonomy. Instead, in all these quotes citing > "subjects", "mind", "life", > and "free", there is the presumption of a > collective consciousness being dominated or controlled by > DQ. > Unless you can provide a statement by the author supporting > the individual as the conscious locus of existential reality > or the agent of value in the world, I don't see how you > can refute my "self in a vat" characterization of > his philosophy > > dmb says: > There are no supporting references to individualism and > there is no self in a vat either. As I've tried to > explain once or twice already, the MOQ rejects some basic > metaphysical assumptions but you're reading the MOQ as > if those assumptions still figured into what Pirsig is > saying. Like many philosophers over the last century or so, > he rejects the assumptions of subject-object metaphysics, > which is known around here as "SOM". Your > questions clearly emphasize the individual's awareness, > personal autonomy and the like. There is a common sense > level in which these concepts make a great deal of sense, > but here we are talking about a philosophy that rejects a > lot of the traditional ideas about subjectivity and > objectivity. Listening to you and Marsha discuss the matter > is like listening to Ayn Rand trying to convince a Buddhist > monk to be more selfish. But the difference is not really > that stark. We don't need to go East to see what this > rejection looks like or what it means. Pirs > ig's pragmatism and radical empiricism are enough. In > fact, you could go back 100 years and find it in the work > of Dewey and James. They rejected SOM, adopted radical > empiricism and did so in plain english. John Stuhr explains > it pretty well in his introduction to Dewey. Stuhr is the > editor of an anthology that was assigned reading in a grad > school course on pragmatism. As I understand it, every > thing he says here about Dewey could also be said of > Pirsig, James and other classical pragmatists. He says,... > > "At the outset, it is vital to distinguish Dewey's > theory of experience and his 'empiricism' from the > philosophical traditions and theories which he seeks to > overcome and abandon. Dewey's major criticisms of > traditional empiricism are neatly summarized in 'The > Need for a Recovery of Philosophy". Here Dewey rejects > the traditional view of experience as something subjective > and psychical, as 'particularistic' or composed of > discrete sense data assembled by the understanding, as > primarily an affair of knowing, as directed primarily at > the past, and as something separate from and opposed to > thought. > How, then, does Dewey positively characterize experience? > In the beginning to understand his view, it cannot be > overemphasized that Dewey is not using the word > 'experience' in its conventional sense. For Dewey, > experience is not to be understood in terms of the > experiencING subject, or as the interaction of a subject > and object that exist separate from the interaction. > Instead, Dewey's view is radically empirical: > experience is an activity in which subject and object are > unified and CONSTITUTED as partial features and relations > within this ongoing, unanalyzed unity. Dewey warns us not > to misconstrue aspects of this unified experience-activity: > distinctions made in reflection. If we don confuse them, we > invent the philosophical problem of how to get them > together. > The error of materialists and idealists alike - the error > of conferring existential status upon the products of > reflection - is the result of neglect of the context of > reflection on experience." > > dmb continues: > In addition to those passages where Pirsig simply declares > his MOQ to be a form of pragmatism and radical empiricism, > there is also this explanation about the limits of > traditional empiricism, which assumes SOM and limits > experience to what can be known through the five sense > organs and which is known as sensory empiricism. > > "The MOQ RESTATES the empirical basis of logical > positivism with more precision, more inclusiveness, more > explanatory power than it has previously had. It says that > values are not outside of the experience that logical > positivism limits itself to. They are the ESSENCE of this > experience. Values are MORE empirical, in fact, than > subjects and objects. (Hot stove example is here) ...This > value is more immediate, more directly sensed than any > 'self' or any 'object' to which it might > later be assigned. ..It is the primary empirical reality > from which such things as stoves and heat and oaths and > self are latter intellectually constructed. Onces this > primary relationship is cleared up an awful lot of > mysteries get solved. The reason values seem so > woolly-headed to empiricists is that empiricists keep > trying to assign them to subjects or objects. You can't > do it. You get all mixed up because values don't belong > to either group. They are a separate category all their own > ..but showing > that, of course, is a very big job..." (Lila 66-7, > near the end of chapter 5) > > dmb continues" > Compare Dewey's phrases "distinctions made in > reflection" and "products of reflection" > with Pirsig's notion of things as "intellectually > constructed". Compare Dewey's "unanalyzed > unity" with Pirsigian notions like "indefinable > quality", "pre-intellectual experience" or > "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum". These are > ways of talking about the static/dynamic split, where the > distinctions, reflections and intellectual constructions > are all static while the primary reality is dynamic and > prior to all that. More to the point for our purposes here, > both of them are trying to explain how the individual > subject is derived from experience rather than the locus of > experience. They both insist than this is a case of giving > existential status to an idea, of treating a concept about > or interpretation of experience as if it were the cause of > experience, the pre-requisites of experience. It is in this > sense that they reject the the subjective self and objective > reality. Like I said, these > are perfectly fine AS CONCEPTS. But when we take them as > metaphysical assumptions, we can get very confused, > especially if we read Dewey, James or Pirsig as if they > hadn't abandoned those assumptions. > > I sincerely hope that helps. > dmb > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Making the world a better place one message at a time. > http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace > 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/ Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au 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/
