ROGER DEALS FIRST WITH THE ISSUE OF "BALANCE"
BETWEEN RATIONALISM AND MYSTICISM AND
SECOND TRIES TO PUT KEVIN"S LEVEL TO REST
I have been encouraging and at times mildly supporting Kevin along this path
of exploring a 5th mystical level. I think the issue holds promise for all of
us to gain more understanding of the MOQ, and possibly to extend
it.....though I never assumed the extension would necessarily have to be in
the direction of a intellectually-described mystic level. And like Kev, I see
this as being about understanding, not about winners and losers. The only
"losers" in this group are those that come out of all the discussions at the
same static place as they entered.
Let me first re-address Horse and Platt's arguments that the MOQ balances
rationalism and mysticism. This then sets the stage for addressing Kevin's
Platypus.
3 PLATT QUOTES:
1)<<<<<
Only once does Pirsig hint that there might be a higher
moral level than the intellectual, and that�s when he suggests that perhaps
it might be �a code of art.� (Chap. 13).>>>>>
2)<<<<<
Horse argues, rightly I believe, that Pirsig's metaphysics presents a
balance between rationalism and mysticism with neither superior to other
but two aspects of the same thing. In a similar but not exactly the same
vein, I argue that static and Dynamic are but two sides to the same coin
in the sense that you can't have one without the other. Both are equally
supreme for creation and preservation of reality.>>>>>>
3)<<<<<
Perhaps the discussion would be served if you would
respond to this criticism by explaining precisely what you mean by
"mysticism."if it's...individuals pursuing beauty through science or art,
maybe we can agree
after all.>>>>>
ROG RESPONDS:
First, I do not disagree that Pirsig bridges rationalism and mysticism, but
he does elevate one of them above the other, and he does it throughout the
book. But I must define the terms. By mysticism, I mean "abandoning all
static patterns in favor of pure Dynamic Quality" (Paraphrased almost exactly
from p 427). It is the pursuit of "unpatterned reality" (another term Mr.
Pirsig uses on this page). It is his code of dynamic morality, which isn't
really a code (from Platt's quote of p188). Now that I have defined mysticism
as this "dynamic morality", my guess knowing Horse and Platt is that they
would agree with my clarified statement that Pirsig elevates dynamic morality
over intellectual morality, and hence elevates mysticism DEFINED THIS WAY
above intellect. Let me know if I am assuming too much.
I also agree with Platt that even though mysticism-as-the-pursuit-of-DQ, is
more moral than any static pattern, it still depends upon static patterns.
Both are equally supreme for creation and preservation. In fact if anything,
I think Pirsig has "pattern envy" or prejudice, but I digress. To summarize
the MOQ on this issue as previously defined:
"Dynamic Quality is a higher moral order than static scientific truth."
(418-19) Though RMP then does an important further clarification....."
Dynamic value is an integral part of science. It is the cutting edge of
scientific progress itself." Here he does as Platt suggests and unites DQ and
sq, he connects dynamic evolution with what evolves -- the patterns.
Does anyone disagree that as explained above the MOQ stresses both the
balance and codepenency of mysticism and the levels (including the highest
intellectual level) and the moral superiority of this mystical pursuit of DQ?
**************************************
Now, I want to get to what I see as the foundation for Kevin's mystical
platypus. The major problem as I see it is that this mystical pursuit is
itself a static pattern. Kev writes:
KEV:
<<<<<
two questions, Socratically:
1. Is mysticism Dynamic Quality itself or is it rather a static search fro
Dynamic Quality?
2. Is mysticism intellectual quality or is it rather between both Dynamic
Quality and intellectual quality and thus constituting a new static level?
>>>>>>
The answer of course is that this post intellectual mystic pursuit of DQ is
itself a pattern. The root of this problem is the confusion Pirsig has
created between the 4 static levels, and his MORAL CODES. To refresh
everyone on the codes, here is the text:
"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life--
conventional morals--proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft
and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the
supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order--democracy,
trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a
fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it
a �code of Art' or something like that, but art is usually thought of as such
a frill that the title undercuts its importance. The morality of the brujo in
Zuni--that was Dynamic morality." (187-8)
On the other hand, Pirsig has explained the levels as an encyclopedia of
patterns:
"Static patterns of value are divided into four systems: inorganic patterns,
biological patterns, social patterns and intellectual patterns. They are
exhaustive. That's all there are......nothing is left out. No "thing", that
is. Only DQ, which cannot be explained in any encyclopedia, is absent."(172)
So, to get back to Kevin's concern, where do the MORAL CODES fall under
Pirsig's static encyclopedia? He states himself that they are "translevel"
when he refers to one of them as "sociobiological". But clearly they are
patterns. He calls all of them "codes" except for the 4th, which he says
both is not a code, yet contradictorily could be a "code of art". By saying
it is not a code, he seems to be falling into Kevin's trap of saying that it
is unpatterned. But pursuit of unpatterned reality is itself a pattern.
Where do the moral codes fall in our encyclopedia? Where does a
sociobiological code or a dynamic code (or is it a dynamic not-code?) fall?
I believe they fall under the heading of METAPHYSICS, which is in the
intellectual pattern chapter. However, the Dynamic code is not fully
explainable. It begins to point toward that which cannot be patterned. The
Dynamic code is a definable code of morality that is in pursuit of
undefinable DQ.
In summary, I believe that the moral codes are metaphysical codes that fall
under the final chapter in Pirsig's encyclopedia of every "thing". This
final 'code of art' is the toughest to categorize and could even be
considered as the last entry in the Book Of Reality because it begins to
point to the undefinable. But it is itself definable as an intellectual
pattern.
One final point. Like Horse, I agree that a 5th level is possible. In an
evolutionary metaphysics, as patterned reality evolves, the encyclopedia
evolves too. However, if a 5th level does arise, it will be post intellectual
and hence post metaphysical. However it will not be post experiential. If
another level emerges, it will be more dynamic and more moral and hence more
mystical (as defined above). BUT, the 5th level will not be added to our
metaphysics, it will replace our metaphysics with a higher-level, more
dynamic system of patterns. The 5th level will not be intellectually or
metaphysically describable, but it will be capable of describing or
containing the levels below.
The 5th level will embrace itself and the preceding levels, but it will
redefine all 5 levels into its own terms. The 5th level won't be added to
the MOQ, it will replace the MOQ.
Kevin, I suspect it is time to unask the question.
Roger
PS -- This has been an awesome thread! Three cheers for Kev!!!
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]
