From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Thu May 12 2005 - 16:27:59 BST
Hi everyone,
I've been musing over ZMM for a year, and over Lila since the autumn, and
there's just one part of the MOQ as formulated by Pirsig that strikes me as
inconsistent. I'd be surprised if it hasn't come up over the years of
discussion that have been taking place on the MD, so I apologise if I'm
going over old ground.
According to Lila, Dynamic Quality has driven the evolution of inorganic
patterns into biological, social and intellectual patterns. To me, this
doesn't tally with ZMM's central thesis that pure (Dynamic) Quality is the
flux of pre-intellectual awareness supplied by our senses. I accept that
social and intellectual patterns "filter" our experience into something more
static and less bewildering, but surely our senses are a *biological
pattern*, and also filter the Quality reality, before the social and
intellectual patterns get involved. I would stipulate that the ineffable
Quality reality is infinitely more complex than that which is presented by
the limited range of our five senses (following Kant's phenomena/noumena
distinction, and supported by Pirsig's 4 static levels thesis).
I propose softening the idea that pre-intellectual sensory awareness is
Dynamic Quality, suggesting instead that said sensory awareness is the most
Dynamic experience available to us (due to the fact that it hasn't been
filtered by static social and intellectual patterns). "Most Dynamic
experience available" may not be the best way to phrase it, because I do
accept the possibility that static biological (sensory) filters can also be
bypassed by meditation techniques, and that it therefore may be possible to
experience pure Quality. Perhaps this is what Pirsig in fact intended, but
in his writings I get the distinct impression that the pre-intellectual
awareness, with which he equates DQ, is sensory.
I realise that my proposed modification somewhat undermines ZMM's thesis
that "Quality is the primary empirical reality" (if that's not a direct
quote then it's definitely an accurate paraphrase), but that's the only way
I can see of making the MOQ and the four levels coherent - how can the
senses not be a static biological pattern? Even as I write this, doubts are
creeping in. Am I letting the static intellectual categorisation system of
the 4 levels take precedence over indefinable, empirical Dynamic Quality?
Perhaps I've merely exposed a flaw in the division of Quality into four
static levels? (Pirsig himself says that this is an arbitrary division, but
that it has high quality as an intellectual pattern due to its usefulness.)
I'd very much appreciate your thoughts on this dilemma.
Regards,
Mike
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 : Thu May 12 2005 - 17:04:10 BST