Hi John and group:
I had intended, John, to continue my critique of your Forum essay,
Strand by Strand. But your response to what I said about Strand #I
was so thought provoking that I will simply abandon my original plan.
You indicated you have already made some limited attempts at
addressing the MOQ from the human rather than the organismic
perspective. Excellent. IMHO any metaphysics or critique thereof--
both being wholly human enterprises--must concede to a human
perspective outlook. I don�t see how it can be otherwise since a
human, no matter what the pretense, is doing the looking. To attempt
to understand what reality is like for an alligator, for example, is
perhaps an interesting thought experiment but an essentially futile
exercise. (I have enough trouble trying to understand from a human
perspective what reality is like for my wife.)
Regarding my assertion that artistic and spiritual qualities can be
placed under a 'mystic� umbrella, I won't exactly retract it but fully
understand your wariness of "these sorts of groupings.� That's
especially true, I think, in suggesting a level above the intellectual,
other than DQ itself. As you know there have been attempts from
time to time in the LS to define a higher level, but with little success.
The closest I�ve seen that Pirsig himself comes to identifying a level
above intellect is the "code of art" you mentioned and in the last
chapter of Lila where he writes:
"Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral
act since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a
higher mystic one.�
Here Pirsig definitely posits a "mystic level" above the intellectual,
contradicting your thought that the mystic experience belongs to the
lower biological level. The problem in discussing a higher level is
largely created by the words we use that carry so much historical
and emotional baggage. The recent attempt here in the group to
express a theory of "art,� for instance, raised a huge brouhaha.
Similarly, words like "mystic,� �spiritual,� �religious,� "enlightenment,"
"nirvana," etc. all have a "twilight zone" stigma attached to them and
are easily challenged or brushed aside (with much valid historical
evidence) as primitive and potentially dangerous nonsense. Perhaps
this is part of the reason why you're reluctant to grant mysticism a
higher place in Pirsig�s evolutionary hierarchy. If so, you point is
well taken.
Still, the belief (which I share) that there is more to reality than
intellect is currently capable of exposing and expressing is fairly
widespread. I'll happily label this mystery "the conceptually
unknown,� the phrase Pirsig uses in lieu of "mystic" in "Subjects,
Objects, Data and Values." I also think Pirsig is correct in saying
that the nature of the conceptually unknown is aesthetic. It's no
accident that both artists and scientists depend on their aesthetic
"sense of beauty" to validate each tentative step they take into the
conceptually unknown realm.
To think in terms of a conceptually unknown reality as opposed to a
mystic one allows me to agree with you completely when you say, "I
believe there is still a lot of work to do in understanding the new
reality that is emerging within human societies that is able to critique
society itself and point to 'higher' values, though I suspect self aware
creativity will be one central theme, and language another." In fact, I
hope you will expand on this for I think you've identified the position
of today's cutting edge in the overall evolutionary process.
I also fully agree with your statement that "All the froth in this
discussion about organisms being 'subjects' or 'objects' is in my view
rather irrelevant, confusing the irreducible SOM content of language
with the message being conveyed; looking at the finger rather than
the moon." The fact that Pirsig has to explain a non-subject/object
metaphysics in subject/object language has been the cause of much
confusion and contention among the group. I find myself falling into
this language trap quite often. Would that we all could resist the
siren attraction of words and focus solely on direct experience.
Easier said than done.
Speaking of direct experience, I notice you seem to adhere to a
primary assumption that we can legitimately consider to be real only
that which can be tested. By "test" I presume you mean the sort of
rigidly controlled, repeatable experiments demanded by science. If
so, this seems to me to be a limited approach to the world of direct
experience, eliminating much of the "humanities� and the "arts" from
reality. I suspect I'm wrong in this interpretation of your words, so
perhaps you'll see fit at some point to further elaborate on what you
mean by "test."
Finally, to come back to the subject of mysticism again, I agree with
much of your doubt about the validity of mystic experience because
I've never had one other than a few "wow" experiences like hearing
a great song for the first time as described in Lila. Still, I haven't
followed the instructions or done the necessary work to become
"enlightened." So I'm reluctant to challenge the honesty of those who
have experienced "oneness" any more than I challenge physicists
who have experienced "nonlocality" of electrons. I suspect that you
also have an open mind on the subject, but, like me, are suspicious
of much of the New Age cultish claptrap being promoted as
profound revelations from ancient and wise Eastern gurus.
Enough for now. You can see that your Forum essay and follow up
postings have triggered lots of thoughts (much too disjointed I fear).
I look forward to your future posts for more intellectual stimulation
and �enlightenment.� (-:
Platt
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]
