Hey Bo,
Thanks for addressing my post. I hear your frustration. Please
understand I am genuinely listening and I'm not trying to argue for the
sake of argument. I hope you appreciate my thoughts after reading this
post. I've spent hours writing this. This is my first attempt to
explain *everything* concisely! Although there is always more to say, if
anyone were to read any of my posts this is the one!!!
I completely agree Pirsig spends a great amount of his work addressing
subject-object dualism. Pirsig's grievances with SOM are -- to me --
100% valid. I love Pirsig for this and it should not be a source of
disagreement between us. The misunderstanding came from our use of
"dualism"... What can I say, I screwed up by not defining my term. In
my defense, some of my readings used the term in this alternative way.
Let me clarify...
SOM is indeed dualistic in the sense that there are subjects and
objects. But, SOM is monistic in the sense that reality is made of only
one thing -- matter. When I asked if Pirsig discussed dualism -- I meant
in a sense fundamentally different than SOM. I meant a Cartesian type
dualism -- not SOM dualism.
What do I mean by a "Cartesian type" dualism? This is perhaps very
unclear -- but it is crucial -- so I will explain better. Suppose there
is a glass on the table. I don't really know anything about it other
than what I experience. To be concise, there is no glass but simply
glass-ness. There is a shape when I look at it, and a hard physical
sensation when I feel it, etc, etc. I think this perspective is
compatible with the monistic metaphysics idealism -- which says there are
only ideas of things.
But, but, but, if I leave the room and come back the glass remains there.
It intuitively seems there is an external glass-thing that remains in
tact even when I am not experiencing it. With intuitions such as this
reality becomes dualistic. There is the experience AND the external
form/structure separate from experience but verified by experience.
Suppose, for example (gloom alert), there was no experience because
everyone died. This dualism says that there would still remain bunch of
dead bodies (external structure) around. We can not know this, but it
is reasonable to assume.
To summarize, this non-SOM Cartesian type dualism deems reality is made
of (1) material reality or structure (2) the individual selves, streams
of consciousness, points where reality experiences itself, souls,
sensitivity of the structure through experience.
Some of the implications of this type of dualism are the same as the
MOQ. Let me discuss the familiar Dusenberry. Pirsig said to understand
native culture one would need to become very intimate with it.
Unfortunately, SOM has taught us to "don't become intimate" because one
won't be objective. Of course, that is ridiculous and I applaud Pirsig
for his criticism.
But the Cartesian type dualism *also* says to take a total experience
approach. There is structure to reality apart from experience, but this
structure is inferred from experience only. To understand natives, we
would need to be sensitive to their experiences. (There could be more
explanation here, but I think it is intuitive).
So here are my "complaints" ...
How Cartesian duality better explains the self....
Cartesian duality says there is external form and experience of it. The
self can be seen as a link between the two. But remember, the external
form to reality is merely inferred. Knowledge of the self, therefore,
can not come from direct experience! The self is all of experience, but
experience is everything so there is nothing to contrast it against.
Only when we imagine an external structure to reality -- which there very
well may be -- one can contrast the self against it. In other words, if
there be a notion of external reality -- which our intuition strongly
tells us -- there must also be a notion of self that experiences it!!!!
So there are two ways to know oneself. One is through mediation and
experience without knowing, where the observer is the observed. The
other is practical knowledge through inference only.
The MOQ does not get at this.
Now to the levels....
First, I don't see a physical/biological split within experience. For
example, when a tree "defies" gravity by growing upwards, it can be
explained by photosynthesis which is a physical theory of matter and
energy. It is only behavior of *conscious* beings that seem to violate
physics as their choices appear arbitrary from a physics viewpoint.
Cartesian dualism could possibly explain the conundrum by directly by
incorporating "will" into consciousness. This is complicated, but it is
more intuitive that my "will" violates physics than biology.
As far as the morality part, I have to admit that life is better than
nonlife. This is something I knew before Pirsig, and due to the
explanation above, I don't think he proved it.
Second, I don't really see a biological/social split within my
experiences. I think you explained that our social values are emotional
and our biological values are of the senses. But William James also
correctly explained that there is no fundamental difference between
emotion and sensory perception. Anger, for example, is a sensory
perception just like hunger or thirst. Hunger is a feeling in the
stomach, whereas anger is a feeling in the chest, clenched muscles,
breath, blood pressure, etc. Anger, consequently, might be more social
then hunger, but it is as fundamentally biological as is hunger, which --
as explained above -- is fundamentally physical. Emotions don't have to
be social. From what I remember from psychology, neurosurgeons can
stimulate certain emotions just as they can stimulate certain
sensations. The mystery is why does anger -- which can be *physically*
observed in the body -- feel like anger? Similar to the MOQ, the answer
given by Cartesian dualism says reality is primarily experienced, which
can't be further explained. Anger is anger. Unlike the MOQ, there is
not the confused split between anger and hunger.
As far as the morality part, I again have to give in that many lives are
more important than one life. Again, I don't think this is proven by the
levels, but intuitive from my experiences.
Third, I don't really see a social/intellectual split. I find this part
of the MOQ very confused. My confusion started a long time ago when I
could not think of one hypothetical example where knowledge of the levels
could help me make more moral decisions-- given I was open-minded and
sensitive to reality. (This was in contrast to the part of the MOQ which
stated that knowledge begins with experience.. That helped a lot,
because it justified what I had learned from Eastern philosophy.) To get
though my confusion, I asked people on the list where the knowledge of
this split has changed their opinions on moral issues not discussed by
Pirsig. It seemed that one could only retroactively choose the level
fit, *after* his/her experiences told him/her right and wrong. After
weeks of debate, I got Roger to admit that the levels -- by themselves --
had not directly changed his opinions on anything -- he relies on
experience but uses the MOQ as a table to sort his experiences out. Last
month Diane said that we ought to understand the levels but then
transcend them. With no examples, it is no wonder I was confused
understanding the levels! I wanted to test the levels against my
experiences and intuition, but the levels require experiences and
intuition. So why not drop them altogether and go where I was before --
with my experiences and intuition! A theory that says nothing is not a
theory of anything!
The Cartesian dualism -- to me -- is excellent in explaining morality. I
have seen so often in my life (after reading Krishnamurti) badness coming
from people afraid of paying attention to the whole of their
experiences. When one chooses to become insensitive to certain aspects
of reality -- fear replaces love. The self is that which is sensitive to
reality and being sensitive to reality is love. We have a metaphysics
where love and attitude is at the centre!!!
Finally there is the whole dynamic/static thing. To me, the MOQ is very
confused here. What is dynamic quality... that experience which is
unknowable or an experience of change or whatever is immediate? These
are not the same things!
With Cartesian dualism, dynamic/static becomes much more simple. First,
external reality can be dynamic or static. Neither is strictly preferred
as sometimes change is for the better, and sometimes it is for the
worse. But, the self (that which is sensitive to external reality) can
also be dynamic or static. Here dynamic is unambiguously better!! A
person who does not cling to the past or let his/her worries of the
future block out his/her immediate experiences or sensitivity of reality
is dynamic. The person who changes and flows with reality and has an
attitude of love. A static attitude is one of fear where one does not
change with reality, but ignores reality and clings to ideals,
insecurities,etc.
This is again a bit complicated and there is a lot to say about knowledge
vs. perception, love, having a dynamic attitude, attention, and will. I
think we need to discuss these way more than stability/change or
social/intellectual.
I'm not sure how all this will be received. I genuinely think this
dualistic metaphysics has all the benefit of the MOQ, with none of the
confusion. Of course, if I am wrong, I hope you now understand me
better. I will try my best to have a dynamic attitude to listen and
learn *grin*.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:47 GMT