Hi Arlo & DMB, Arlo, I was enjoying our conversation about the relationship of the levels to each other. So far, we seem to agree on the mechanics. It might be fun to carry this further to see if or where we diverge.
Understanding the levels and their relationship to each other is fundamental to making the first step on the way to understanding the MoQ. It's accessible and not too foreign or mystical-sounding for Westerners. It works whether you adhere to a subject-object universe or a Quality one; and, as I said, you can imagine that type of evolutionary [static] logic having explanatory power even in a non-space-time-centric universe. Sure, the 'things' (where 'things' is in heavy ironic quotes) that comprise a level would be different, but the logical methodology would still have applicability. Mary said to Arlo: I'm exposing the idea that Pirsig's MoQ offers a metaphysics with much greater explanatory power than James'. James' ideas are provincial. If you were not human, you would find his theories quaint and limited. The MoQ, on the other hand, proposes a static evolutionary system that would be true no matter what the starting point of a universe. dmb says: That's not true, actually. James says that we can think of the entire universe as noetic all the way down, but not in a grand unified way. It's a Pluralistic universe in which "everything gets known by something". Also, James and Pirsig are both radically humanist but neither is a subjectivist or a solipsist. DMB, you indicate that you are refuting my statement, but you'll have to explain how telling me "everything gets known by something" has anything at all to do with what I said. You use the word noetic frequently, ascribe this to Pirsig's work and indicate that James also concurred, "but not in a grand unified way". Again, you'll need to clarify what this means, particularly in view of the definition of 'noetic' (provided below). I would say that Pirsig meant the MoQ did operate in a "grand unified way", did he not? If James demurred on this point alone, then the argument for congruence between the two is weakened I would think. Given your respect for quotations and dictionary definitions, here are a few to ponder. no•et•ic: From the Greek noesis / noetikos, meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding. For centuries, philosophers from Plato forward have used the term noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William James (1902) described as: …states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority. Discounting the flowery, post-Victorian prose, you could go to any Christian church tomorrow and hear this kind of sentiment used to describe what it feels like to experience God. Perhaps this is not what he meant? Perhaps he was a questing philosopher with the bad luck to be working in a post-Victorian era when it was necessary to pander to the predominant religious dogma of the day if you wanted to be taken seriously, or perhaps he meant what he said. The term noetic sciences was first coined in 1973 when the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who two years earlier became the sixth man to walk on the moon. Ironically, it was the trip back home that Mitchell recalls most, during which he felt a profound sense of universal connectedness—what he later described as a samadhi experience. In Mitchell’s own words, “The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes. . . .The knowledge came to me directly.” So much for noetics. It seems to be a term easily hi-jacked or at least misconstrued. My point being that William James would likely have felt more resonance with Edgar Mitchell's definition than what I construe to be yours. Mary continued: Let's say time and mass were not the initial SPOVs in some alternate universe. I am suggesting that the SQ evolutionary logic Pirsig has employed would hold equally well under any conditions while James' would not have relevance. There can be many goals for conversation. To have a productive one it is important to clarify what your goal for the conversation is at the beginning and stick to it. Debates are about winning, but as we know, one can dishonor oneself in the process such that the immediate win becomes a loss. On the other hand, one can choose to focus clearly on a goal of achieving understanding. There are no losers in these kinds of conversations. They can be difficult, though, particularly when disagreement is present. When conducting oneself in such a conversation, it is vital to focus on the goal. It is all too easy to slip in to 'winning'. dmb says: Actually, that's not true either. James talks about how some genius in the distant past invented the idea of objects and he says that it could have turned out differently. I strongly suspect that you don't know much about James and you've certainly offered no reason or basis for making these claims. And I happen to know that they're simply wrong. Besides, since Pirsig it was himself who decided to write and published those chapters in Lila comparing James with the MOQ, dismissing James is to disrespect and disregard the views of the thinker you are ostensibly defending. To say, "Actually, that's not true either." is to express your opinion as though it were fact. What I was speaking about was much bigger than the subject-object perspective you reference next with James. It does not strengthen your assertion, but diminishes it since it is off point. Observers of this conversation might conclude you are deflecting. You see, this is what happens when the 'goal' for the conversation becomes winning rather than achieving understanding. Your next sentence follows a pattern frequently used on those with whom you disagree. Verbal bullying is a tactic of those who have the need for control in a relationship (where our conversation here is the relationship) and use authority rather than authenticity as their source of power. If you are interested in learning more about this dynamic I recommend a new book called "Crucial Conversations". Unless you are Charlie Sheen, the goal of any productive conversation is not winning, but gaining understanding - of the other person and of yourself. Derision, insults, and belittling will never sway another person to your point of view. It is a waste of my time and you should be able to see that it's a waste of yours too. Best, Mary 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/md/archives.html
