Hello Ron,dmb:
I had asked about metaphysical significance and status in the sense of
what may be included in a metaphysical discussion and what not.
Ron: That which does not have practical value in experience (the good) .
Pirsig said it best with I believe "that which has no value does not
exist." The best values the ones that have the most value in experience
are usually the most metaphysically significant. To a Pragmatist at least.
Andre:
This is fair enough Ron, but aren't you only stressing the
'positive'/the 'good' side i.e. half of reality?
dmb:
Citing James'[defending his radical empiricism]: Anything that is or can be
known in experience MUST find a place in our philosophies, he said, and by the
same token philosophers have no business talking about anything that can't be
known in experience.
And: "Pirsig's Quality is not a metaphysical entity in the negative sense precisely
because it is known in experience. It's an empirical reality, not a metaphysical
abstraction..."
Andre:
Yes, when I first read James' radical empiricism this was one of the lines that
struck me as most revealing. Here, finally was a philosopher who did not want
to shy away from the 'darker' sides of experience as they can be empirically
verified (and, by implication, be included in any philosophical discussion) nor
from the more 'enlightened' experiences as handed down to us from sages and
saints and holy men (and of course some of William James' and Pirsig's own
experiences).
It reminds me of what Pirsig says on the AHP tapes, citing Maslow approvingly:
"We need something bigger than we are, to be awed by it,to commit ourselves to a
new, naturalistic, empirical and non-churchly, sense, perhaps as thorough as Whitman,
William James and John Dewey did. I believe that another task which needs doing before we
can have a good world is the development of a humanistic and trans-personal psychology of
evil, one written out of compassion and love for human nature, rather than out of disgust
with it or out of hopelessness".
And, of course digging around in Anthony's PhD on p42-3 we find a nice summary
of Pirsig's MOQ with its two features:
" The Dynamic Quality viewpoint of the MOQ corresponds to the notion of sunyata or
nothingness as understood by Nagarjuna...while the static viewpoint...of the MOQ
corresponds to sunyavada...[which] describes all the conceptions of reality including
metaphysical views, ideals, religious beliefs, hopes and ambitions. However despite
employing Buddhist and Taoist philosophy, Pirsig rejects the more esoteric practices of
these traditions...in order to avoid using supernatural explanations in the MOQ".
Thus it can be said that the MOQ 'reflects' an empirical reality whilst at the same time
referring to/pointing to a Dynamic reality. "The Dynamic reality that goes beyond words
is the constant focus of Zen teaching". It is the [Rinzai,Zen]"... tradition with
its belief that enlightenment can occur even when engaged in everyday activities (such as
flower arranging or motorcycle maintenance) that the MOQ develops... .
"One of the most significant features we notice in the practice of archery [and
motorcycle maintenance] and in fact of all the arts as they are studied in Japan ...is
that they are not intended for utilitarian purposes only or for purely aesthetic
enjoyments, but are meant to train the mind; indeed to bring it into contact with the
ultimate reality". (ibid)
In this way of course the MOQ is an attempt to reconcile Eastern and Western
thought.
Thank you Ron, dmb.
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
