Mark, Sam and all Focusers: On May 17, Sam Norton asked: Is DQ just on the top, ie you have to ascend up the levels to get to the DQ (and therefore, presumably, become like the LILA character Phaedrus)?
dmb says: In terms of a human life, I think that's a good way to think about it, as a spiritual and/or developmental goal. Its like the whole static thing has to unfold and mature before it can be transcended. There is the idea of the infant as experiencing a kind of pre-static DQ. There are no patterns, or very few, to be transcended. The static world is still forming and is not yet ripe for such things. But as we mature and static patterns are built up, they shape and define our world. And I think that transcending this static forms does not mean their rejection, destruction or abandonment. Its more like remembering what you once knew. And I wouldn't be too fussy about mastering any particular forms nor would I like to suggest that enlightenment is only available to an elite group of world-class talents. Its just that growth depends on health. There are, I suppose, certain basic requirements in the developmental process. Even in those cases where such realization come suddenly, there was something about that life that had ripened. Sam continued: Or is DQ the product of the interaction of the various levels (along the lines of Mark Maxwell's 'sweet spot' imagery) - and therefore the pursuit of DQ involves the enhancement of all the levels in different and mutually reinforcing ways? (and therefore we aren't obliged to become like the LILA character Phaedrus) dmb says: I don't think we can say DQ is a product of anything. I think its more a matter of making the static world invisible or transparent. Artist, athletes, motorcycles mechanics, house painters and just about everyone else knows about that zone we get it. When we get a feel for the work it becomes so engaging that all effort and struggle disappears. When we're totally into it, we disappear. You that that zone? That's what I mean by transparency. Its not that the paint brush or wrench is indistinguisable from your hand or your intentions, its just that noticing those distinctions will only get in the way and slow you down. I've done some house painting and there were times I was not really there. Once in a while that even happens while I'm writing posts here. Personally, the phrase 'Sweet spot' conjures up images of tennis rackets and golf clubs, of wacking things with sticks, of country clubs and competitive sports. So that phrase never quite worked for me. I'm thinking about a mode of consciousness wherein all the various elements involved are working together as if they were parts of a whole. I think this is at least one of the ideas in Pirsig's imagery. Obviously, motorcycles and sailboats are such unified strutures. And so are we. Sam said to msh: ....I don't think it's tenable to say that the MoQ doesn't 'enthrone' Socrates as a martyr, and therefore hold him up as someone to be emulated, in contrast to the presentation of him in ZMM, where he was clearly NOT to be emulated. msh replied with his explication of this seeming idolization: "The battle for science (or Socratic philosophy) to free itself from the restrictions of social-dominated thought was a moral battle because social domination was threatening intellectual survival. What the MOQ says is, OK, the threat is past, so now let's catch our breath and apply unfettered intellect to the split between society and science. When we do, we see that not everything about social restrictions is negative, and the positive elements should be incorporated into our newly-freed intellectual understanding of the world." dmb says: Right. The intellect's political struggle for independence is a moral one, but it also created some problems. One is a kind of disregard for social level values and the other is the mistaken notion that intellect was born without parents. These are the two big mistakes that the MOQ seeks to address. The Phaedrus of LILA depicts this alienation of intellect from society and Richard Rigel represents the social level types who are so angry and upset about the disregard and disrespect they sense from intellectuals. And this is why Pirsig explains the problem with 20th century intellectuals taking sides with biology., putting the social level in the crossfire. And the bit about being born without parents is addressed too. This is where the "linguaistic turn" fits into the picture. This is essentially the recognition that langauge, which has evolved as a social level sturucture for tens of thousands of years, is what provides us with the capactity for intellect and shapes our intellect to a very great extent. That's why French culture has to exist before Descartes can think and therefore be sure of his existence. This is where the notion that all our ideas are suspended in language, that all our understandings are derived from our cultural context. All this and more is Pirsig pointing out that the intellectual most certainly does have parents. There is even a passage where he points out that enlightenment science is very good at including the biological senses in mediating our knowledge, but was totally lacking when it came to mediation through the social level. In the quest for independence from the social level, the intellect became alienated and disassociated. Instead of growing up and making a home of her own, this child tried to kill her parents or deny their existence. But that's only because the parents were trying to kill her or prevent her from growing up. And of course we are talking about a spiritual and psychological split within ourselves and within our culture. This is the crisis behind those hurricanes and earth quakes. Its making people crazy, you know? It has people picking sides. Its what keeps people from being well-integrated machine, it causes war and social upheavel. Its a huge rift. msh continued: So intellectual value (truth) is recognized in some social level patterns. But if you're not convinced by this, here's something else to consider: Socrates (Plato) insists that truth stands alone, apart from social considerations; and yet, in LILA, Dusenberry's method of determining anthropological truth, by emersing himself in the culture he's studying rather than maintaining a SOM-Science objectivity, is found by Phaedrus to be highly valuable. So, Dusenberry's MOQ- Science method, which contradicts Socrates, is embraced by the Metaphysics of Quality! QEFnD. dmb says: Right, and beside the multi-pronged assertion that intellect does indeed have parents, parents that deserve some respect, there is a "patterns of culture" theme running throughout the book, even tracing some of the enlightenment's central ideas to social values that had been absorbed from Indian culture. Overall, one gets the idea that language and culture furnish all of the pre-requisites for intellect. Personally, I think of the richness and complexity of the mythological world, multiply that by several factors fiquring that language and power structures and such are equally rich and complex and then conclude that the social level is a deep, deep well that intellect has only begun to explore. Or, if you prefer, intellect is like an inch-deep layer of fresh water on top of an ocean. And so it is with us. It seems to me that most of what we are is very ancient compared to intellect and yet we go around as if intellect is running the show all by itself. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems there is a connection between this isolated subjective ego of individuals and the whole intellectual level as an alienated orphan. Two sides of the same coin. A world view that splits the self from itself. Something like that. I mean, it seems like there is a single sickness with lots of various symptoms. And maybe the very idea of the individual, or at least a CERTAIN idea of the individual, is part of that sickness. Not that individuals are given too much worth, exactly. Too much weight and emphasis is given so that the roots and connections are ignored so that the importance placed upon individuality ends up cutting people off from each other and from the world. Individuals then become strangers, even to themselves. Sorry. I'm trying to describe a fracture that runs through individuals and through the culture. I see it as one and the same line, but its hard to get the idea across clearly. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
