From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 31 2004 - 20:49:30 BST
Hi David
Comments: Pretty much bang on.
regards
David Morey
----- Original Message -----
From: "storeyd" <storeyd@bc.edu>
To: "David Morey" <us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk>; <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 5:51 PM
Subject: RE: MD MOQ and The Moral Evolution of Society.
> Hi all,
>
> Just some ideas towards resolving this DQ/SQ debate, re: which has
priority,
> what is the nature of their inter-relation, etc.
> I think we've always gotta be careful about splicing DQ and SQ into
> another metaphysical platypi--that is the last thing Pirsig would want
anyone
> to do; even to talk about them as "things" (or "essences" or "substances")
is
> to drag them into the metaphysical mud. And I think what Pirsig is
getting at
> is, at least in the traditional sense, perfectly un-metaphysical. So when
we
> say "MOQ", what that "M" stands for is--we should always be keeping in
mind
> and, more importantly, conveying to others whom we are trying to explain
the
> ideas to--a rather radical notion of metaphysics. What Pirsig IS trying
to do
> is grapple with and provide an inclusive picture of the nature of the
manifest
> universe. In the Western philosophical tradition this was called
metaphysics,
> and was typically done with a ready-made set of logical categories, which
> shifted shapes and appearances throughout the centuries. When we get to
> Hegel, however, the crystal palace reaches its summit; the center cannot
hold,
> the lie is out and naked; Nietzsche and Heidegger call the lie,
humpty-dumpty
> comes tumbling down, and the wake of that implosion is the twentieth
century:
> the cry was "back to Kant", which is to say, back to a skepticism towards
> metaphysics, understood as the science that tries to sketch large,
> all-encompassing pictures of reality. But the problem was never trying to
map
> reality--the problem was the quality of the maps that had been hitherto
> produced, the mental-conceptual tools with which those maps were being
drawn,
> and, most importantly, the mapmakers themselves (what we call the
> SOM'ers!)...and, philosophically, what we get from this collapse is a set
of
> fragmentary, humble, descriptive disciplines, all, in different ways and
to
> varying degrees, off-shoots of Heidegger: phenomenology and hermeneutics.
> These disciplines, which deal with, respecitively, individual and
collective
> meaning (that is, meaning/consciousness WITHIN and BETWEEN individuals),
were
> dissociated entirely from the scientific disciplines, which dealt totally
with
> the outside world, which was certifiably identified with THE NATURE OF
> REALITY, which is precisely the territory that the old metaphysics were
trying
> to map with the cartographical tools of SOM. Critical theory, the other
> discipline that spun out of the metaphysical rubble (from Hegel's darkstar
> twin Karl Marx), dealt with both outsides AND social interactions, so it
has,
> as it were, one foot in science, and one foot in philosophy. Again,
however,
> critical theory could never brook that gulf between the inside and the
> outside, because it never believed in insides at all.
> My overall point is that the major philosophical schools of the
twentieth
> century--phenomenology, hermeneutics, and critical theory were all using
> broken remnants, rusty tools, conceptual frameworks, etc., passed down
from
> the metaphysical tradition of the West, yet in almost all cases, they
denied
> that tradition entirely (this is true as far as ethics goes--even the
schools
> of emotivism, e.g. G.E. Moore, which basically deny true, metaphysically
> grounded morality, presuppose and utilize a moral vocabulary they
inherited
> from Aristotelian ethics, and basically cut off the branch that they're
> sitting on). The disciplins themselves are actually quite modest, and not
> very ambitious in their scope.
> But where did the drive/desire/impetus for cosmic map-making go? Right
> into science. Philosophy retreated into the cave of epistemology, and
science
> rushed boldly into the metaphysical light. But what is so fascinating is
that
> the major streams in science, on separate tracks and in their own ways,
ran in
> to a major problem (especially physics and biology)...the Newtonian and
> Darwinian paradigms were inadequate. They couldn't explain the data. The
> HUP, Bell's Theorem, and the theory of emergent evolution cast the old
static,
> essentialist, physical-laws-as-gods paradigm into the wastebin...because
the
> new scientific theories don't work without consciousness at all levels of
> reality...in the end, it's the only way to explain the data. there's
nothing
> subjective or speculative or wishywashy about it, it's merely the best map
we
> can make. So what we can do now--and what people like Pirsig are
doing--is
> take all these different streams of knowledge, and the old metaphysical
> traditions, and yoke them under an evolutionary context. And in this
context,
> dualisms are dyads. DQ and SQ are not properly regarded as things or
> entities, because they're not even really two separate referents. they
are
> distinct signs for the same referent, what we call Quality (of the Tao,
elan
> vital, the Force, whatever works). IN the Zen tradition, we would just
call
> this nonduality; the final leap is realizing that nirvana (DQ) and
samsara(SQ)
> are not-two. Niether one "gives way" to the other, or leaves the other
"in
> its wake". it's not a matter of hierarchical subordination or
prioritization.
> SQ is what DQ LOOKS LIKE in any given instantiation, but the terms
themselves
> are just our way of describing that. Because in this new evolutionary
> metaphysics, there are no simple "things" lying around to look at; all
> thinghood is thinghood-in-relation. All thinghood is partial. All
thinghood
> is a pattern of value, what Buddhism calls a "karmic pattern", an
inherited,
> stable organization of evolutionary baggage. As Pirsig says, Lila is
nothing
> more and nothing less than a set of patterns of value; nobody's home.
Lila
> is, quite literally, no-thing (not nothing!), she is no particular thing
at
> all, you cannot pin her down precisely because you cannot pin evolution
down;
> you can talk about her, talk to her, study her, kiss her, make love to
her, or
> hate her, but you cannot possess her with words or deeds, because you
can't
> possess anything with any absolute certainty. Because DQ is totally
beyond
> the economy of language, but we can talk about it precisely because
language
> is MADE OF IT in the first place. So what has Pirsig really created then?
He
> has created a static pattern of representation for Quality, which we
strive to
> experience ourselves, communicate to each other, and understand. The MOQ
IS
> ITSELF a static pattern of value that we are all co-creating/enacting.
> "Quality" is yet another name--call them transendental signifiers--for the
> divine (tao, god, brahman, etc.), and as long as we always realize that
"the
> true tao is that which cannot be spoken of"--and also that "the true Tao
is
> that from which one cannot deviate"--then we're in the clear.
> Comments?
> -Dave
>
>
>
> 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 May 31 2004 - 21:13:50 BST