On 16 Mar 00, at 8:27, Jason Vogelsberg wrote:
> Oh fer crying out loud, I have endured this argument for as long as I
> can without saying something. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, and I'm
> sure not saying that some interesting points haven't been made. But you are
> all overlooking something so obvious that its like Gilda Radner ranting on
> and on and then saying "nevermind".
Hello Jason and group.
I do most whole-heartedly agree with you, but let me open with a
short summary. Our reading of LILA's first chapter has spawned
many interesting foci, but the most "philosophical" one is whether
the Peyote experiment was the grain of sand around which the
pearl of MOQ formed (excellent metaphor). David has thrown much
prestige into this, but I feel it's a little over-ambitious to think this
has such ramifications. Relax David! :-)
As said earlier, I think the said episode was part of the general
quality enlightenment of the young Phaedrus. The first impulse was
the realization of how a limitless number of hypotheses may cover
any observation, then the Benares and the Korean (military)
experience. The "plant watering" incident at the school in Bozeman
(only then did he meet Dusenberry) and finally the collapse in
Chicago when Quality finally revealed itself to him.
But that was still the "mystical" DYNAMIC Quality. Just as the
LILA quotations (that David B. brings to our attention) says.
Regarding the later MOQ it is the STATIC sequence that
dominates. So I agree with Jason here:
> Let's backtrack. Pirsig didn't build the MOQ around mysticism, he built
> it on top of mysticism. (If you will recall ZAMM, pg. 315, 3rd paragraph.)
> The peyote experience stripped away the "cultural immune systems" he had
> been building up all his life and let him see the root of all of his
> previous Classical thought; The basic awe man has had for the world around
> him since the dawn of time. The Mythos. This was the grain of sand around
> which the MOQ was formed; the appreciation of all that is elemental and
> dynamic in a world that never stops changing. Quality, if you will.
All right, many participants have declared themselves in agreement
with David B and to the extent that DQ is regarded the nucleus of
the MOQ we are all mysticists. I don't think this contradicts
anything that Jason says, and yet, a distinction must be
emphasized.
Magnus Berg once said that a metaphysics comes first.
EVERYTHING must be seen in it's light so the MoQ must be
applied even to the "mystic" term. Phaedrus of the peyote period
was a SOMist - what else could he be - and the unsettling ideas
he had are what all SOMists (and all westerners are until they have
understood the MOQ) will have if they are mad enough to pursue
its logic. People usually shrug such things off and says that to
stay sane one better not think too deeply - or have no capacity for
reflection - but young P could not leave it be.
But the American Indians - and the Asians - aren't SOMists. To
them the "void" at the end of the subject-object logic is the very
foundation of existence. But young P. had not reached
enlightenment (he became disappointed by the Indian guru
declaring the A-bomb illusory) and probably returned from the
teepee just as unconvinced. He had to go his own way.
This is the point where the neo-mysticism (!) have it a little wrong.
Hadn't it been for Pirsig the world view the Far East, the American
Indians and of every native religion would have remained ineffable
that people like Alan Watts would write books about, wringing their
hands over the impossibility of conveying such ideas into western
reality.
Pirsig did not "translate", but rather make a complete western
counterpart where the mystical quality is taken care of by the
dynamic half, but where the static half presents something that can
be undestood by the western mind. He has done the impossible
east-west harmonization that Kipling declared impossible. To go on
speaking about mysticism in the old (SOM) fashion does not
sound right to me. Remember that the said none-westerners never
regarded their world view as "mysticism".
And what's more, this aligns nicely with my idea that MoQ's
intellectual level can be viewed as subject/object metaphysics. But
this is too long already.
Thanks to David L Thomas for the splendid "A Novel Experience" of
15 March selfbiography combined with a reading of the first 3
chapters. BTW aren't you also part of the "Combined Effort"
organization and author of today's (19 March) research of
Phaedrus' biography. Highly interesting. You have possibly noticed
i have delivered a couple of efforts to trace his movements. The
only deviation is that I believe the motor-cycle trip took place in
1968 - he speaks of "at forty..." somewhere and born in 1928, but if
there's a letter speaking about writing on ZAMM in early -68
....hmmm. Anyway it's of no importance.
And thanks to anyone making it through my message
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
