Dear Dave, Thomas, Platt and MD.
First of all. Looking more closely at the archives I couldn't help
seeing the formidable "Reality and observation" serial. Wow! I was
a little shocked by Thomas T. Welborn's characterization of LILA as a
harlot and panderer. Of course ZMM is matchless and I respect that he
has a special relationship with it (so do I!), but I disagree
strongly about LILA. They are completely different books.
Thomas says that LILA (and thereby the MOQ) ....leads not to
freedom from the deadly dogma, but only strengthens it by diluting
the truth even further. If the weakness that he senses in the MOQ
is derived from the "Reality & Observation" exchange I must
comment on the seeming impossibility that some find in Pirsig's
attempt to create a metaphysics out of his original Quality idea.
In Thomas' message Platt Holden is quoted ..quoting Pirsig:
>> Duality is indivisible...etc
This is misprint. It is actually "Quality", but that's not important.
Worse is the next statement by Platt (to Roger):
>> Not only difficulties, but impossibilities. That's why Pirsig took
>> pains to acknowledge the futility of presenting a logical MOQ...."
Where does Pirsig take pains to acknowledge the futility of presenting
a logical MOQ? To the contrary, shortly afterwards (page 68) he says:
"As long as you are inside a logical coherent universe
of thought you can't escape metaphysics...............etc".
Then Platt is quoted again quoting Pirsig:
>> Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without
>> definition, ahead of definition. Quality is direct experience
>> independent of, and prior to intellectual abstraction (LILA Chap.
>> 5)
and goes on:
>> After saying Quality doesn't have to be defined Pirsig defines
>> Quality as direct experience prior to intellectual abstractions.
>> He contradicts himself...etc"
The above is taken out of its context. It starts like this:
"The central reality of mysticism, the reality that
Phaedrus had called "Quality" in his first book is not a
metaphysical chess piece. Quality doesn't have..etc
This is in fact where Pirsig discusses the various objections to the
MOQ and what is cited is the most formidable opponent's - the
mystics - position NOT THE MOQ!. We must not jump from ZMM to LILA
when it's about the Quality METAPHYSICS! All right, some of us are
mystics and don't like SYSTEMS, but it's not fair to use Pirsig
willingness to acknowledge the opposition against the MOQ as if he
endorses it..
In the exchange I spot a general desperation over the fact that words
aren't reality and that once you start to define you have committed a
"sin". But what escapes that catch? It's smacks a little of good old
SOM where words are in the mind in contrast to reality out there. The
MOQ is after all a metaphysics that discards the subject/object
division. Using SOM against it is not valid.
If you accept the MOQ's axioms this paradox is removed. Words,
concepts, language is no subjective mindish quasi-reality but
patterns of ONE static level.
After this broaside back to Dave
who wrote:
>"So we see that (Quality) is not the outcome on an intellectual process in
>which one idea follows another in sequence finally to terminate in
> conclusion
>or judgement. There is neither process nor judgement in (Quality), it is
>something more fundamental, something which make judgement possible, and
>without which no form of judgement can take place. In judgement there are
>subject and predicate; in (Quality) subject is predicate, and predicate is
>subject: they are merged as one, but not as one of which something can be
>stated, but as one from which arises judgement. We cannot go beyond this
>absolute oneness; all the intellectural operations stop here; when they
>endeavour to go further, the draw a circle in which they for ever repeat
>themselves. This is the wall against which all philosophies have beaten in
vain."
I know that you are a "mystic" Dave, our philosophical meanderings
must sound painful and futile to your ears. But you can't completely
avoid theory as long as....etc. :-)
>This was published in 1927 by D.T. Suzuki with Quality substituted
> in bracketsfor what term? RMP seems to restate this below in fewer words.
>PIRSIG:
>Quality doesn't have to be defined. You understand it without
>definition, ahead of definition. Quality is direct experience
>independent of and prior to intellectual abstractions. (LILA, Chap. 5)
As said above this is Phaedrus of ZMM, before LILA and the MOQ.!
>Suzuki then goes on to explain how to go beyond intellect;
>"This region of darkness, however, gives up its secrets when attacked by
> thewill, by the force of one's entire personality. (Quality) is the
> illuminatingof this dark region, when the whole thing is seen at one glance,
> and all intellectural inquiries find their rationale." The more I read of Suzuki's
> work the more it seems that Pirsig's continues on
> in a very similar vein.
I have nothing against Suzuki (I once drove one :-)) but I view
things in the light of the MOQ. Right now the beyond Intellect
is a region of darkness (DQ), but it's an important tenet that
evolution always tries to transcend the last static latch.
>Ver r r r r ry interesting.
I agree to that.
Bo
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]
