Krimel said: I think the biggest problem we have is in distinguishing a world that is completely independent of us from one of our own construction.
Ron replied:I think the biggest problem we face as a culture and thus of science is this very assumption of a world that is completely independant of us. dmb says:Exactly. Thanks, Ron. Pirsig talks about this objective reality at the beginning of chapter 8. In fact, it begins on the same page where I found the quote about the MOQ's expanded empiricism. In Lila, he says,... "When it is seen that value is the front edge of experience, there is no problem for empiricists here. It simply restates the empiricists' belief that experience is the starting point of all reality. The only problem is for a subject-object metaphysics that calls itself empiricism.This may sound as though a purpose of the MOQ is to trash all subject-object thought but that's not true. Unlike subject-object metaphysics the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive truth. If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then we're permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths to exists. Then one doesn't seek the absolute 'Truth'. One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things with the knowledge that if the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally; as useful until something better comes along." [Then comes the analogy where "intellectual realities" are imagined as "paintings in an art gallery".] Ron said:James stated that percept and concept feed into one another seemlessly they compose experience. Percept encoded concept encoded precept. They are discreet in their conceptual meanings only. Pirsig states the same, All expereince is then composed of both aspects, all expereince is then mystical, it is only the focus on the conceptual frameworks which prevents one from percieving this way. The desire for certainty in meaning blinds one to the value of meaning in the concept of certainty. dmb says:I think that's quite right and well said too. Pirsig talks about both aspects as part of the art gallery analogy. "There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence an we can perceive some to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of values", he says. Value is the front edge of experience but you're always pulling boxcars full of conceptual baggage. Also, the difference between 180 degree enlightenment, a turn toward pure DQ, and 360 degree enlightenment, full circle back to include the static forms as mystical too, is another form of saying they both compose experience seemlessly. Krimel said:As for mysticism I have asked for three years for someone to say what it is and why it should be taken seriously, what distinguishes it from other kinds of spirituality? What kind of knowledge is it supposed to provide? Why that knowledge should be taken more seriously than other forms of knowledge? How are we to decide between the conflicting accounts of mystics? What make eastern mysticism "better" than western forms of spirituality? Frankly, I think the whole focus of spirituality is purely emotional. Not irrational but emotional and it is easy to confuse what feels right with what makes sense. If all you want is a good feeling why bother trying to justify it at all? dmb says: These are pretty good questions, even if they do come with a big side-dish of condescension and attitude. I'd refer you to chapter 30 of Lila, where Pirsig says, "once this integration occurs and Dynamic Quality is identified with religious mysticism it produces an avalanche of information as to what Dynamic Quality is" and "Phaedrus thought that sectarian religion was a static social fallout from DQ and that while some sects had fallen less than others, none of them told the whole truth". I don't know if emotion has anything to do with it, but it seems to me that it would be irrational to claim that mysticism isn't important. It has to be taken seriously at least in terms of understanding what Pirsig means by "Dynamic Quality" and understanding what the MOQ is all about. It's no accident that Pirsig's discussion of the connection between DQ and mysticism in chapter 30 follow his discussion of radical empiricism at the end of chapter 29. It's no accident that Pirsig mentions the validity of mystical experience in describing his expansion of empiricism in chapter 8. In ZAMM, he refers to Quality as a mystic term, describes Phaedrus as a Buddha-seeker whose goal is to create a new spiritual rationality and paints a scene in which Phaedrus has an enlightenment experience. He also spends some time in both books explaining why this mystic term cannot be defined, explaining the discrepancy between concepts and reality, which radical empiricism spells out so well. To suggest that mysticism is some kind of emotionally motivated add-on defies a mountain of textual evidence to the contrary. It's just plain irrational. The radical empiricist, among other things, insists that all types of experience must be accounted for in our philosophical systems. Since mystical experiences have been reported by all kinds of people from all times and places, the radical empiricist says it would be bogus to ignore or dismiss it. These are psychological facts. The experiences were actually had and in that sense, at least, they are just as real as anything else known in experience. The is certainly more than one way to make sense of these reports but those who subscribe to the perennial philosophy say basically what Pirsig says in chapter 30; that religion is a static fallout from the actual experience. This notion says that all the world's religions are based on this category of experience and that they each have an esoteric core in which this mysticism is expressed. In that sense, the MOQ would be a form of philosophical mysticism, one not based on theistic beliefs, supernaturalism or any particular sectarian religion. It's based on empirical facts, on the many reports of the mystical experience itself. Like I told you before, you can't say exactly what it is in advance. It depends on who you are, where you are and what you are. Just as in the art gallery analogy of intellectual realities, everybody is going to come to the experience with a different perspective, a different history and different sets of static patterns. There is also the problem of reduction because intellectual descriptions can't contain the overflowing nature of such experience. Also, the experience itself is pre-conceptual, non-conceptual. But when it is presented in symbolic form, as we find in mythology, the metaphors include a great treasure, eternal life, a garden paradise, release from suffering and ignorance and stuff like that. Finally, a shout-out to my friend in Italy whose been enjoying this little smugfest from the sidelines. Thanks. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 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/
