From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jun 12 2005 - 00:23:06 BST
Howdy MOQers:
Pirsig said:
It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see
that although "common sense" dictates that inorganic
nature comes first, actually common sense which is a set
of ideas has to come first. This common sense is arrived
at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of
various alternatives. The key term here is evaluation,i.e.
quality descisions. The fundamental reality is not the
common sense or the objects and the laws approved of
by common sense, but the approval itself and the quality
that leads to it."
Bo said this..
... was intensely discussed in the a thread called "What comes
first" and the excellent thinker/writer David M. Buchanan who at
that time had not discarded his "common sense" protested this,
but for some strange reason he was convinced by Paul and has
since shied these things like the proverbial plague.
dmb says:
You're way too kind. In fact, my relatively recent conversion, with Paul's
help, only proves there was room for improvement. And I'm sure there's
plenty of room left. There are two main reasons why I've shied away. One is
simply that I'm very busy these days. The second reason is because I don't
know that I can help. It seems to me that the only effective way to move you
away from your present position is to somehow dismantle it. Only then could
I persuade you to accept what Paul is saying. But I don't think I understand
your position. And frankly, I'm very skeptical of any interpretation that
has Pirsig so drastically contradicting himself. Not that he's some flawless
god. But notice how the quote (above) begins, the one you find so troubling
and contradictory. It says that "it is important for an understanding of the
MOQ to see" that common sense "has to come first". He's explicitly
announcing the importance of seeing this. Think about that.
Bo said:
But what are Pirsig's motives for these impossible utterings that has
done so much damage to the MOQ? He refers to ZMM and the
argument that Newton's theory of gravity were nowhere before
Newton, but this argument does not deny that there were apples
and an earth to which they fell before Newton so this does not
come close to the shocking annotation which says that the notion
of the static inorganic level (being Quality's first manifestation) is
a good idea. How does he manage to avoid seeing that by this
logic the biological, social and intellectual levels also are good
ideas. And where does ideas reside? Yes, how does the MOQ
itself avoid falling prey to this idea logic?
dmb says:
Actually, in Newton's time there were no apples as we know them. They only
became the sweet edible fruit during the 19th century through a process of
not-so-natural selection. Before that they were sour as hell and only good
for making booze. (For you American's, its interesting to notice that this
makes Johnny Appleseed a kind of drug dealer, a distributor of Applejack.)
Also, prior to the "invention" of the law of gravity, falling was explained
in terms of the four elements seeking their natural place in the hierarchy
of things. And who knows what other cultures have come up with? The point
here simply being that things just fall no matter what we say about it. This
is why Newton's choice to eat the apple got us kicked out of the garden and
doomed humanity to a life of spiritual exile . ;-)
But seriously, I think the trick to "avoid falling prey to this idea logic"
is to refrain from treating the MOQ and Paul's comments as if it were
SUBJECTIVE idealism. That would be a laspe back into SOM and I'm pretty sure
the MOQ isn't saying that. The MOQ does not assert that reality is a product
of the mind, but that the mind is a product of reality. It says the primary
reality comes before common sense, before that static patterns. The primary
reality comes before subjects and objects, which are both part of that
common sense consensus. Notice, in the quote above, how the primary reality
is not the common sense itself, but "the approval itself and the quality
that leads to it." And I think the idea here is that any number of static
realities can be built upon that approval and any number of common sense
realities can be constructed from it. We can see the value in the idea of
evolution taking place in a universe with time and space and gravity, one
that grows from the inorganic to form life and then social structures and
finally intellect. That's a damn good idea. But it is just an idea, one that
doesn't work very well when we get into this high country. There are places
that do not appear on that map, such as this very issue. This is where
mysticism meets empiricism and its very tricky, as tricky as it is
important.
Bo said:
My explanation is Pirsig's failure to heed his own insight that
SOM is rejected and only argues against its objective side by
using SOM's premises of a subject/object (metaphysical) divide
from which it's child's play to prove that everything is in our mind.
But the subjective side is also rejected (I may provide quotes)
and by the same premises it is just as easy to prove that there is
no mind without matter. The MOQ has left behind the SOM (in
my opinion by making it its own intellectual level) and in its
metaphysical system the above annotation is - sorry to say - plain
rubbish. In the MOQ there is no mind that create ideas about the
sequence of its own static levels. The inorganic level is Qualitys
first fall-out and intellect the last. Full stop!!
dmb says:
Try to think of it a different way. (Matt will love this.) What if the
assertion that "the inorganic level is Quality's first fall-out" is taken as
a metaphor? Let's say we need to explain the relationship between the levels
in terms a living Westerner can grasp. That's when we'll talk about the
evolution of the universe in terms of the big bang and astrophysics. That's
when we'll talk about it in terms of linear time. And that's when it makes
sense to insist that inorganic quality comes first. But what would it mean
to the ancient Greeks, who concieved of time moving in the oppostie
direction and imagined a universe that began in a perfect form and was
winding down, devolving through lower and lower ages. And what would such an
explanation mean to that Indian tribe that had no word for "time"? Not much.
These are different cultures with different ideas about what common sense
reality is. If the primary reality is the approval itself and the quality
that leads to common sense, then there is room for all these various
interpretations. And if we had to explain the MOQ's hierarchy to the Indian
or some ancient ghost, we ought not insist on our common sense. I think its
important to introduce the idea of DQ as Nothingness at this point. I would
remind you that the primary empirical reality is so described to suggest its
no-thingness. Its not a vacuum like cold, dark space. It just that it is not
finite. It is beyond concepts of time and space and all that. And so maybe
we'd tell them that inorganic quality, which is Quality's fall-out, is
lowest in the hierarchy. We'd tell the ancient one that it'll be the only
thing left at the end of time. We'd tell the Indian that its the most simple
level, the most stable level or some other way that will make sense to her.
But the really interesting thing is that these different common sense
realities all work. They all explain experience. And while there are any
number of ever-changing sommon sense explanations, its not arbitrary either.
We don't get to just go around making stuff up. And what was it Pirsig said
about the mythos, if you think you can step outside of it, then you don't
understand what it is? Despite Ham's fear of a communist takeover by
postmodern Freudians, or whatever, culture is a collective affair. The
language is bigger than any speaker and having a personal worldview is the
definition of insanity. This is why SOM has to have some relationship to the
MOQ, why it has to be subsumed within it, so it ain't craziness. This is why
Pirsig can accept common sense explanations as good idea and yet contradict
them when it comes to issues concerning the primary empirical reality. When
Phaedrus finally finds the Qualtiy he'd been looking for the whole world
disappeared, even himself. All those static patterns dissolved. And I would
speculate that even then there was experience that could later be described
as inorganic. Whatever words in whatever culture, there is something in the
immediate flux of experience that may properly be described as first or last
or most basic or most stable or whatever. As long as we agree. As long as it
works, for all practical purposes, that is our realtiy and its not wrong.
Once we get into the static world all that matters is that we work within
the given context. Even evolutionary change and creativity have to work
within the given context. There is a rightness to our static forms that does
not allow us to be too imprecise or dreamy.
And its seems that a big chunk of inorganic reality will crush a skull no
matter what its called or why we think it fell on him.
But ultimately, I think we're talking about a mystical reality. The MOQ
asserts that reality is not definable, is infinite and timeless. That means
there are no "things" and there is no "first". They're just good ideas. This
realization is a real bummer when you're first in line to buy a new thing,
but there it is.
Bo said:
In LILA there is nothing about ideas as the primary reality. Paul
will of course tell you that it is Quality that creates the ideas, but it
doesn't change a thing, if the inorganic level is an idea, then
intellect is an idea, and the whole MOQ (as an intellectual pattern
according to him) is an idea too. Yes, by the same token logic
there was no Quality before Pirsig. Point to it ...etc.
dmb says:
Full circle. If Paul tells you that Quality is the generator of everything
we know and not intellect, I think he'd be telling you that the MOQ is a
form of philosophical mysticism and NOT subjective idealism. They may look
alike and even overlap a bit, but Pirsig's long and sustained attack on that
ridiculous fictional man behind the eyeballs prevents that.
I think Paul's explanations are cool and concise compared to this clumsy
mess, but there you go.
Thanks.
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 : Sun Jun 12 2005 - 00:31:19 BST