LS Re: Renselle's LILA review.


Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Fri, 22 Aug 1997 19:50:33 +0100


I enjoyed reading Paul Douglas Renselle's review of Pirsig's "Lila", but
there are a few points I want to dwell a bit longer on.

Renselle writes: "He conjoins the epic struggle of mankind to intuit and
rationalize the mind-body, subject-object dichotomies..." Yes, he
definitely does, but not by modifying the Subject/Object Metaphysics (SOM),
but rather by replacing it with another greater metaphysics - the
Metaphysics of Quality (MOQ) that makes the said dichotomies loose their
fundamentality and fall in under MOQ as subsets (as Renselle correctly
points out). This is important, otherwise the quality idea turns into just
another new-age mysticism.

According to Renselle the second feat of the MOQ is that it provides: .."A
moral framework for sentient beings". Again, yes, but it is a moral
framework for everything. The marvel of it is that nothing falls outside
the moral order. Value-quality-morals is the very bedrock of reality.

Renselle suggests a static level below the Inorganic one that would
correspond to the quantum "world". This point was raised by Jason Gaedtke
and in my response I stressed the basics of SOM. It is dualistic, but its
"fault line" runs between dynamism and stability (not between mind and
matter). Whatever is permanent in this world falls in under a Static Value
level: What isn't, is Dynamic. The intimated quantum level displays no
patterns at all, and falls consequently within the dynamic realm.

Also, Jason referred to Renselle for hinting to a new level above
Intellect.
This is a very interesting point and in my view the MOQ allows for a never
ending escalation of moralities, but the "ascending value" is dynamism
itself at work and doesn't QUALIFY as a new static level.

(for completeness let me add my opinion of the vague borders between the
different static levels that Jason brought up)

 As to the vague borderline between the different static levels I would
say that this doesn't endanger the Quality idea. According to it, the
static patterns are - like waves - patterns in an underlying dynamic
medium: different from other patterns but of the same "stuff". No one can
tell where matter ends and life begins, or where an organism ends and a
society starts (a body can be regarded as a society of cells), nor the
difference between communal cooperation and cultural activities. Still, one
recognizes it when one encounters the experience itself.

The "friendship" term (any other emotion for that matter) is a good example
of the interplay: As sexual/erotic/etc attraction it is an Organic value,
as love/loyalty/sympathy/etc it is a Social value, but as "Platonic"
love/empathy/etc it is an Intellectual value. I admit that this is
ambiguous and may be debated, but the beauty of the MOQ is that it
integrates emotions; In contrast to Subject/Object metaphysics here such
phenomena - that plays such an enormous role - are subjective nonentities.

                                                                  
                                                          Bo Skutvik

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:25 CEST