From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Aug 16 2004 - 18:18:24 BST
Hi Scott
I think we agree here except that I would
suggest that Pirsig's scheme is OK and that
by further clarification of the relationship
between SQ and DQ the gaps discussed below
can be filled in Pirsig's scheme.Although filling
gaps is not a good metaphor, as bringing DQ
into the picture is more like recognising the hole
through which the light pours.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, August 16, 2004 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: MD Plotinus, Pirsig and Wilber
> David M,
>
> [DM said}
> > I understand what you are saying but are
> > you being entirely fair to Pirsig?
> > Pirsig explains what he means by SQ.
> > SQ belongs to the finite world of
> > repeating patterns. Clearly aspects
> > of SQ can be called intellectual and are
> > part of finite world rather than anything
> > transcendent. So he says something about how
> > intellect works in this world. You point to the
> > possible connection between DQ and that force that
> > enables the world to Become. You are happy to call
> > this intellect.
>
> I think that Pirsig does a disservice to intellect by seeing it *only* as
> static pattern, and therefore ourselves as only static pattern. This is --
> of course, in my view -- bad metaphysics, and has bad consequences.
> Intellect, even common everyday intellect that has not been transformed to
> Intellect, is a much more significant development than just being a fourth
> level of SQ, for it is what allows a human being to detach him- or herself
> from all SQ, including limiting intellectual static patterns (e.g.,
> materialism). That is, detachment *is* intellect -- the ability to reflect
> on something rather than be compelled by it. Pirsig, on the other hand,
> promotes "pure experience" and sees intellect as covering it up, as if
> intellect itself were not experience. Which is contradicted by his own
> experience (eg., his excitement in ZAMM on his metaphysical
breakthroughs),
> or his account of Poincare.
>
> I might add that without this view of intellect, the MOQ's only
> justification for claiming that the intellectual level is morally superior
> to the social is that it comes later and is built on top of the social.
>
> Clearly awareness/DQ have deep connections.
> > The thing I think Pirsig fails to discuss is how SQ is possible.
> > What lies behind any SQ/return/same again occurrance?
>
> Concur. For that one needs the logic of contradictory identity, or
> something similar, like Coleridge's polarity or Cusa's coincidentia
> oppositorium (or Cupitt's Be(com)ing? I'm not sure, haven't read how he
> uses it), which as I see it, cannot be finessed into the MOQ. Because of
> this, the MOQ has no chance of providing a philosophy of mind, which makes
> it incomplete. Philosophy of mind is where materialism fails, and so does
> the MOQ, since neither can make any sense of consciousness.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Aug 16 2004 - 22:16:32 BST