Dan said to Krimel:
...I suppose there isn't really a problem saying Dynamic Quality is irrational.
However, some of the negative connotations of irrationality might mislead those
who have yet to familiarize themselves with the MOQ. They might think: oh, only
mad people and crazy folk can fathom what Robert Pirsig is saying. Or perhaps I
am on about nothing. I don't know.
dmb says:
That's pretty much what I was thinking but my version of this criticism goes a
bit further. Irrational does mean "not rational" but the term is very often
used pejoratively to characterize faulty reasoning, magical thinking, mental
illness, and the like. In fact, that's how the word is ordinarily used. People
say you're being irrational when you not making any sense or when you're taking
some silly superstition seriously. Knock on wood.
Since "pre-conceptual" and "pre-intellectual" are also terms that mean "not
rational" but give us that meaning without the pejorative connotations or
misleading associations, those terms are much better at capturing Pirsig's
intention. The question driving the whole structure of the MOQ is, after all,
"what's good"? The MOQ is about morals, values, excellence. It's about what's
true and right and artful. And the whole structure of it is arranged around DQ
(pre-conceputal or pre-intellectual experience). I think it would be more
accurate to say that this primary empirical reality is neither rational nor
irrational but "pre-rational" seems okay. We don't need it because the terms
Pirsig uses are just fine but it doesn't carry the same negative baggage.
"Irrational" would be a bad substitute. Objections to this aren't really
overcome by pointing to the less common meaning of "irrational" (as
"non-rational" in a non-pejorative sense). That's the conceptual version of
escaping you
r criminal conviction on a technicality. I mean, unless the purpose is to be
pejorative, use of the term "irrational" in relation to "Quality" or "Dynamic
Quality" just shows bad rhetorical taste. It's the wrong word in the sense that
it's a bad artistic choice.
Krimel replied to Dan:
No, no I see your point. Again for me there is a sort of gestalt shift that
occurs when meanings get contrary and sort of oscillates. Pirsig sketches all
this kind of thing out but it is not as though all the details are there or
that he gets it right in every instance. I am a blind man touching elephants.
The places I can lay hands on the beast the more perspectives I have. The
elephant is "like" a rope or a wall or a tree trunk or... No single bit of
fondling can teach me about an elephant. The "elephant" emerges from the
process of touching.
dmb says:
I see what you mean but I'd like qualify and clarify the basic idea.
Like any philosophical view, the MOQ itself is static and should not be
confused with the Quality it talks about and around which it is focused. In
that sense, it's not clear what sort of elephant you are molesting. If we are
talking about DQ itself, then there is nothing to say. That's not something
that can be put into words or sent in an email. MOQ-DISCUSS accommodates the
metaphysics, the skilled manipulation of intellectual static patterns , but not
DQ as such. So let's say the elephant you're groping is static and in
particular you are looking to get your hands on as many different features as
you can so as to puzzle out what the thing really looks like.
To do that, you'd want to fondle as many descriptions as you can and in this
case what you mostly get are negative descriptions, by which I mean
descriptions that rely on saying what DQ is NOT. The first one is
"undefinable". That just tells you what it isn't; it is not definable. It is
not conceptual. It is not intellectual. It is not divided. It's undivided in
the sense that there are no conceptual or intellectual distinctions. Already
you can see start to infer the shape of this abused elephant, no? Pirsig also
calls it the "primary empirical reality" in contrast to concepts, which are
secondary.
Then we can bring in terms from other philosophers, starting with the others
who are mentioned by Pirsig in relation to this same elephant. In ZAMM he
equates Northrop's "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" and Poincare's
"subliminal awareness" with his "Quality". In Lila he equates James's "pure
experience" and "immediate flux of life" with his own DQ. So we have a wide
variety of terms even within the primary texts. If you want to look outside of
those two books, there are even more ways to violate this beast.
If you can read all those terms in such a way that they all mean the same
thing, in such a way that each term has the effect of illuminating and
clarifying the meaning of the others, then you know you've pretty well
discerned the basic shape of the thing. This is not meditation or mysticism.
It's a comparative analysis of the text's key terms and core concepts. An
analysis of just two of the terms used will preclude certain misconceptions or
misinterpretations. If somebody asks, "in what sense if this immediate
experience undivided?", you can answer by pointing to the term "pre-conceptual"
and explain that it "undivided" in the sense that it is experience prior to
conceptual distinctions, prior to the differentiations of reflective
consciousness. And then, hopefully, that somebody will say, "Oh, that's what
Northrop means by 'undifferentiated'!" And then you'll say, "yep, you've got
it".
No elephants were harmed in the production of this explanation.
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
