Hi Glenn, Rick and All:
GLENN:
I don't know if "hate" is too strong, because I don't know him (Pirsig)
well enough. But I know "hate" doesn't fully describe the complexity of
his attitudes about science. If you had to describe *your* attitudes
about science, would you find similarities with his? What about
differences?
Like Pirsig I admire science for what it has learned using the scientific
methods of experimentation, verification and peer review. I also admire
it for keeping the door open to change based on future discoveries. I
fault science for it�s focus on experience provided by our physical
senses alone, denying as valid what is learned from purely intellectual,
aesthetic or meditative experience, i.e. subjective experience. It�s this
deep division between objective/subjective, mind/matter that science
has propagandized successfully in the Western world that I feel leaves
too much of human experience unaccounted for. Fortunately, following
its own credo of never-be-satisfied, science has looked deep into
nature down to the quantum level and there has found--surprise--
subjectivity/mind. The full significance of the quantum discoveries has
not yet penetrated the thinking of the scientific community much less
the humanities. By smashing the mind/matter lock, Pirsig has done for
philosophy what physics has done for science--opened up new modes
of interpretation for ALL we experience.
GLENN:
I suppose yours is the interpretation Pirsig wants, considering that he
says anyone can verify the hot stove for themself if they care to
(meaning you don't need premonitions). But then I have 3 complaints.
The first is that pain is a physical sensation, not what I would call a
genuine psychical DQ experience. It seems firmly rooted in the
biological level. In fact you could even argue that psychic feelings like
awe are biological .If there is a difference between biology and DQ, it's
very easy to confuse the two. If the two are entangled, it's difficult to
separate pain (the biological component) from the low-quality of pain
(the DQ component). In any event science will probably show, if it
hasn't already, that the cutting edge of pain is the action of neurons and
nervous tissue, in which case you'll have to fall back on my
interpretation of the hot stove to put DQ in it's proper place.
Second, the observation that pain precedes oaths is certainly true in
this case but it's not always true that value precedes rationality.
Sometimes you actually have to think things through before you
appreciate the value (or lack of it) in something.
Third, this is simply not a more fabulous explanation of experience.
The conventional explanations of sitting on a hot stove are at least as
good. DQ does not resolve the deep mystery of subjective experience,
it just moves it to a new address.
First I disagree with your assumption that DQ must be a psychical
experience. The vague sense of betterness which describes the DQ
experience can emerge from any and all levels. Alleviation of pain, for
example, is biologically based but psychically felt. All this separation
you insist on is a holdover from mind/matter split that science keeps
insisting on (except as noted).
Second, you have to value rationality to �think things through� in order to
arrive at another value.
Third, the MOQ resolves the mystery of experience by equating
experience with reality, morality and Quality. It breaks the self-imposed
boundary of �it�s all physical� and substitutes �it�s all value� which
explains so much more of experience than those stuck between the
pincers of subject/object.
GLENN:
Like I said, the original discussion wasn't about rocks, it was about the
mind/matter problem. I just used rocks as an example of a substance
created by a dynamic quality experience (saying 'humans creating
substances' is just sloppiness on my part, because this makes it
sound like people are alchemists, but this isn't what Pirsig is saying, of
course). Presumably the creation only occurs with rocks not formerly
created and not staticly latched.
>From your MD post dated 28 July, 2000:
PIRSIG:
So what the Metaphysics of Quality concludes is that all schools are
right on the mind-matter question. Mind is contained in static inorganic
patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual patterns. Both mind
and matter are completely separate evolutionary levels of static
patterns of value, as such are capable of each containing the other
without contradiction.�
GLENN:
If it�s not still contradictory it�s weird. A timeline of evolution is clearly
described in by MOQ, where inorganic matter comes first and minds
come later. Saying matter is contained in static intellectual patterns is
saying brand new matter is being created by the mind on the fly. Is this
matter different from the matter that evolved before mind did?
PH:
Your critique was raised by Maggie and answered by Roger last
year. Unfortunately, while I remember the date, I can�t recall the
answer. Perhaps someone will jump in and enlighten both of us. I
think it may have something to do with Pirsig�s contention that the
reason there�s a mind-matter problem is because the biological and
social levels get left out. In any case, you raise a good point that
deserves a better answer than I�m able to provide. End of MD post
dated 28 July, 2000
GLENN:
Pirsig says it best in ZMM.
PIRSIG: (ZMM ch. 29 p. 374 25th Ann.)
"Man is the measure of all things." Yes, that is what he is saying about
Quality. Man is not the *source* of all things, as the subjective idealists
would say. Nor is he the passive observer of all things, as the objective
idealists and materialists would say. The Quality which creates the
world emerges as a *relationship* between man and his experience.
He is a *participant* in the creation of all things. [emphasis his]
I could not find quotes like this in Lila, despite thinking there were.
Even though all the ingredients for it are there in MOQ, and folks here
have talked about it plenty, I'm wondering now if MOQ truly specifies
this. If it doesn't, my biggest complaint with the MOQ would vanish
(leaving only about 50 minor ones :)).
Well, doesn�t that quote from ZMM about man being a *participant* in
the creation of all things sound like quantum theory? Would you, as a
defender of science, throw out the Copenhagen Interpretation? Also
you stick by your assumption that mind is strictly an emergent from
physical processes in the human brain. But what if mind has been
around in various forms ever since . . . whenever?
As to the original question: �Mind is contained in static inorganic
patterns� refers to the configuration of atoms, electrons, particles and
such that form the physical base of the brain. �Matter is contained in
static intellectual patterns� refers to the names and scheme of
relationships we assign to our experience of atoms, electrons,
particles and such. In between, as Pirsig points out, are the biological
and social levels which the advocates of the mind/matter division
generally fail to distinguish, tossing physics/chemistry/biology
(science) onto the objective horn and society/intellect/art
(humanities)onto the subjective horn, resulting in the dilemmas that
the matador called MOQ skillfully resolves.
Thanks for the Valentine greeting. Love you back.
Platt
PS. If you find too much rhetoric in this post, Rick�s to blame for
reminding me of the value of rhetoric to score points. (-: I�ll try to
restrain myself next time.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
