Greetings, Joe [Ron quoted] --
[Ron]:
The experiences that coincide with others is called sanity, the ones that do not are mystical. It's the mystical experience which drives the dynamism of the social level. If the individual can convey their own experience in a way that is believable or that society is open to particular types of mystical expression. ie: visions, religious experiences, art.
[Joe]:
Pirsig proposes a DQ(undefined)/SQ(defined) metaphysical division of reality. How can I know and talk about the undefined like the boundary between the inorganic and organic level of evolution? The knowing was attributed to undefined mystical experience, and talking was through analogy and metaphor. It was agreed that the boundaries between levels are mystically apprehended. Religious experiences, visions, art are extensions of undefined experience that are not necessarily metaphysical except by analogy, becoming in your parlance a definition of MYSTICISM. This extends mysticism into areas of definition from SOM.
I think you're both applying labels injudiciously to what should be regarded as either an objective or a philosophical approach to understanding.
Ron's assertion that universal experience is "sanity", whereas subjective experience is "mystical" is an unnecessary distortion of these terms, since both kinds of experience are common to sane and insane people. Aren't you simply saying that shared experience leads to knowledge "by consensus", while proprietary experience cannot be universally validated? Unless you're talking about paranormal experiences, such as seeing the face of Mary on a grotto wall, there's nothing particularly "mystical" about art or religious concepts, or the affects these values have on the individual.
Likewise, Joe's use of the words "defined" and "undefined" in relation to metaphysical concepts is misleading. Everything known in existence (SOM) can be defined, even if not fully explained. That MoQ's author chose not to define SQ, DQ, Quality Patterns, Intellect, or the Conscious Self does not mean that such concepts are undefinable.
In fact, most metaphysical concepts can be defined, although they are typically incapable of description. For example, the concept of God, Essence, or Absolute Source eludes description because descriptive terms apply to experienced attributes or properties. However, as Cusanus demonstrated in the 15th century, the transcendent source can be defined as "the coincidence of all contrariety, the 'Not-Other' which is not opposed to any [actualized] other." For the same reason, we can't describe Nothingness, but we can define it either as "that which does not exist" or "that from which nothing can come."
I would suggest that an effort be made to define the problematic terms of the MoQ before concluding that the 'levels ontology' is metaphysically incomprehensible. Ideally, such a project would be undertaken by an acknowledged scholar of Pirsig's philosophy and developed as a glossary or addendum to the author's published works. It would go a long way toward making the Quality thesis comprehensible to newcomers, as well as providing an "official guide" to the most controversial issues.
Best regards, Ham 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/
