Hi Kevin, Struan, Platt, Jason, Glove, Rich, Fred, Jim (???) and
anyone else who might be tuned in....
A few points before I turn to other things:
On 23 Apr 99, at 20:27, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
Kevin:
I absolutely and completely agree that Pirsig means to bridge both
positivism and mysticism under one metaphysics grounded in value-
centered empiricism. But to me this is irrelevant of whether another
level should be added. Although positivism and mysticism are
bridged, they are still mutually exclusive...
Horse:
It was my understanding that Pirsig _UNITED_ positivism and
mysticism within the MOQ when he says that the MOQ subscribes
to (Radical) Empiricism. Both are Empiricist by nature of their
foundation of experience/observation. If, as you contend, they are of
different levels then they would not be uniteable - can one unite
Social and Intellectual levels or are they separate as Pirsig insists.
Mysticism and Positivism, as approaches, are both intellectual and
thus _can_ be united - if they are of different static levels as you
insist then they cannot be united.
Kevin:
For me the logic is quite simple, mysticism isn't intellectual and it
isn't Dynamic Quality - so a new level must be added to bridge the
two - that is, a static level dedicated to uniting with Dynamic Quality.
Horse:
Again you are making a common mistake. Static value is
synonymous with "things", whilst DQ is no-thing by definition. One
cannot unite things and no-thing - it is logically absurd.
Kevin:
After reading Lila, anyone claiming that mysticism isn't morally
superior to rationalism has blatantly skipped the parts s/he didn't like.
Horse:
(Do you mean rationalism or empirricism?)
I agree that mystic experience is morally superior to rationalism (I
would also say that empiricism [radical or otherwise] is superior to
rationalism) and the main reason I have argued against your position
is to try and prevent you from degrading mystic experience. When
Pirsig equates religious mysticism to DQ he is quite obviously writing
about the experience of the religious mystic (revelation) - the same is
true for the secular mystic or the shaman and (at times) even the
experimenter with hallucinogenics like Peyote or LSD. It may be that
the mystic experience is not (always) completely equateable with
DQ (it may be a matter of degree) but this doesn't justify degrading it
to Static value.
Kevin:
It's quite frustrating to answer all the dissenters of a given proposal,
and then still have them disagree. I feel I have adequately put to rest
all concerns anyone had about adding another mystic level ....
Horse:
It may be that your reasoning has convinced yourself and some
others but you have still not convinced everyone - myself included.
Incidentally, you are using reason (an intellectual value) to validate
what you refer to as a higher value moral position - this is immoral by
your own reasoning. You should be using Mysticism to establish it's
superiority over Intellect. As Struan pointed out in his post of Mon, 19
Apr 1999 there is a noticeable irony in this approach.
Kevin:
... yet still apathetic people continue to hold on to disproven
arguments without any effort to reinvigorate their side. I would
appreciate any and all arguments against a mystic level to be argued
now...
Horse:
In other words this is a form of competition!!!?? How does this tally
with your earlier posts on competition/cooperation.
Kevin:
... and after such a time I think we should put it to a vote ...
Horse:
And what then? Do we censor all dissenters? Create a new rule for
the list denying access for those that don't accept a 5th level. By all
means have a vote if you wish - it's an open forum - but don't expect
the nay-sayers to accept the results as authoritative. This is a social
value (a vote) trying to suppress an intellectual value (reason/logic).
Again this would be immoral by anyones reckoning of the MOQ.
Kevin, it would be of enormous value to all if you were to clarify your
usage of the terms you are using and how you apply those labels.
One who labels him/herself a mystic has not necessarily received
the mystic experience. Not all those who have received mystic
experience necessarily apply the label mystic to themselves.
Mysticism may refer to the explanation or the experience etc.
Incidentally, I'm not saying that levels do not exist above Intellect,
just that I don't agree with your argument for mysticism (the
approach or the experience).
Horse
PS Your time machine is in need of a service - it's all over the place
:-)
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
