Denis, Bo and squad,
Denis wrote
> I have trouble understanding why the beginning of this post is so
> different.
Yeah, but look, it wasn't my fault, okay. I was trying to get my head
round Pirsig and there's a fundamental contradiction in his morality.
Basically there are five codes and the fifth code says "oh and by the
way ignore these codes".
It's a paradox and the paradox goes like this:
To be moral you should rationalize your actions based on the four levels
To be moral you should not rationalize at all
Bodvar is trying to fudge it but I think that's the wrong way to go. I
think we should face up to the paradox and solve it, if we don't it will
keep haunting us.
Denis again:
> Ever heard about the 'horizon d'attente' ?
No, but do tell us about it ...
> whenever a new literary style comes forth, to be understood and
> appreciated it must have something of past styles in it. It must be
> dynamic to have artistic value, but not so much as to be
> unrecognizable for the reader.
I think Pirsig is well aware of the horizon d'attente, even if he
doesn't use that phrase. I think it's precisely what he was concerned
with ZMM and Lila
If he had said:
"We are now dealing with morals on the basis of mysticism."
nobody would listen (apart from some new age fruity loops)
But what he said was:
We have decided that mysticism is rational (because it is empirically
verifiable). So, we are now dealing with morals on the basis of logic
Much better! But it's tricky because the rational proof of something's
existence does not prove that that thing itself behaves rationally. But
then, if he hadn't made it "scientific" he would never have wormed his
way into the intellectual mindset. Reason is the basis of the SOM;
Dynamic quality is associated with religious mysticism. That's a
non-starter for somites. Even if they do "sorta get it", they want it
explained in their own language. Which is fair enough actually. Pirsig
makes Zen palatable to intellectuals in a way that Herrigel, Suzuki etc
don't.
The danger is that they will latch the palatable bits and decide that
the radical stuff is not to be taken seriously. "uh oh, that Pirsig
bloke's gone all mystic again ... cats with halos? Yeah right, what has
he been smoking now?";-)
The first moral imperative sounds quite scientific:
*To be moral you should rationalize your actions based on the four
levels*
That could be latched quite easily, it's not too far ahead of our
current mindset. It's a minor step forward, from thinking your pile of
sand is the whole world to throwing piles of sand at other people. But
if you don't include the paradox then it's not the full moral theory.
You still have to step back and see the whole desert.
*To be moral you should not rationalize at all*
That seems harder to accept. Both in itself and because it contradicts
the first one. But to learn about morality you must grasp both of them
... is that it? The MOQ's morality is more subtle and complex than
either one of these imperatives taken individually.
You want an example? Take Picasso. Picasso was an artistic genius and
therefore highly moral (nb morality in the MOQ goes well beyond the
narrow range of moral issues that the SOM restricts us too). He was a
genius because he broke all the rules. So breaking rules makes you
Dynamic? Depends whether you break them because you can't manage them or
because you've transcended them. First Picasso devoted himself to the
study of all the masters who had gone before him. If you look at his
early work it's like a catalog of artistic styles dating back to the
Renaissance. He knew all the rules and followed them precisely. He
studied them, practised them, mastered them brilliantly and then, when
he was sure it was the right thing to do, he broke them. The same theory
can be applied to other kinds of morality.
So the paradox is resolved. You don't just study the codes sometimes and
sometimes you don't. You study them so thoroughly that they become part
of your nature and then you naturally transcend them. Socrates had it
right.
Diana
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:45 GMT