Mati said to dmb: ...Obviously from my perspective reality is the coexistence of both DQ/SQ. DQ has not been defined and if I understand Pirsig right, it can’t be defined. Yet that doesn’t stop people from trying including those who closely hold to the mystic reality.
dmb says:Right, the MOQ paints reality as DQ and sq together. And DQ can't be defined because definitions are static. The mystics and Pirsig agree on this. The term refers to an experience that defies words and concepts. Despite this, it's taken as real because it's known in experience. Our inability to define it simply isn't enough to dismiss the experience itself as unreal or unimportant. Radical empiricism says that our philosophical descriptions of reality have to account for all experience regardless of whether or not it's definable. So what you can do is talk about what it is not. You can explain WHY it's not definable. And then you can point to all the various reports of these ineffable experiences. You can go back and look at the religions of the world to see how they've expressed the indefinable in the symbolic language of their myths and rituals. This is a social level expression of that same experience but even there the reference is indirect. The myths and rituals, when they work, can lead you to have this experience but of course the myths and symbols themselves are static too, even more static than our intellectual descriptions. How does Pirsig put it? What the intellectual level says isn't more true in any absolute sense, whatever THAT means. It's just that intellect is more Dynamic, more open to change, at a higher level of evolution. But the MOQ is a form of philosophical mysticism. It is a meeting of East and West and so likes it's mysticism without all the theistic symbolism. You know, it prefers non-theistic religions like Zen, where this empirical reality is sought through techniques that quite the mind, that put aside the world of definitions and concepts in favor of a direct experience of reality. Think of it like this. The Tao (DQ) that can be named (SQ) is not the real Tao. This is how the book on Taoism opens but the it goes on to talk about the Tao for quite a while. This is no different from what Pirsig did. He opens saying you can't get it with words, that metaphysics is a 30,000 page menu but not the actual food, and then goes on to construct a metaphysics with words. This is just a paradox we have to deal with, live with. It's not a philosophical problem so much as a recognition that definitions and concepts have their limits, that reality is bigger than they are. I think this paradox is very illuminating in that respect. It helps us see more clearly what concepts are. Mati said: I think it would be a stretch to suggest that this symbolism found in mysticism is in itself a form of static intellect pattern. Yup, it can see DQ but it does not have the capacity to understand it metaphysically. dmb says: Well, the symbolism refers to mystical experience and was supposed to precipitate the experience but I agree that these symbols and myths are not intellectual. This is the difference between mythos and logos. Metaphysics is a logos thing while symbols are a mythos thing. But the mystical reality itself is neither. Mati said: I would suggest that any explanation or understanding of DQ from a mystical perspective would in the end be tied to the social level. Now I think there is a real benifit to study what the mystics had to say about DQ and try to assist us in understanding its beauty and capacity of DQ patterns from an intellectual/metaphyscial perspective. dmb says:Well, yea. That's exactly what Pirsig does in chapter 30, right on the heels of his discussion of radical empiricism in chapter 29. He identifies DQ with religious mysticism but then goes on the explain how static religious dogmas obscure the very thing they were meant to present. (Although I'd point out that "DQ patterns" is a contradiction in terms insofar as Dynamic means it is unpatterned.) But my central objection, which I'm only repeating at this point, is that mysticism is not a social level thing. It's not an intellectual thing either. But both levels can refer to the experience, point to the experience, within their own parameters. The mystical perspective isn't tied to either of them but the MOQ is an explanation of DQ from a mystical perspective. DQ is the mystical perspective and the MOQ is built around it. Did you happen to catch that post I sent to Bo a fews ago where I extracted a whole bunch of quotes on DQ and mysticism. This idea is in Lila from beginning to end. I've become convinced that this is just about the most crucial part of the whole deal and yet it keeps getting pushed to the side in various ways. People will say an asteroid impact is DQ, that God is DQ, that driving their car is a mystical experience (because they do it thoughtlessly, I suppose) and all kind of stuff that just makes me scratch my head and wonder. Oh well, I guess it just means Pirsig was right about there being a cultural blind spot. Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ Contacts: Organize your contact list. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/marcusatmicrosoft.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!503D1D86EBB2B53C!2285.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_UGC_Contacts_032009 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/
