Hi, Victoria and all
[snip]
>>A metaphysics is only better if it
>> enlarges our conceptual perception of reality. "Wet", or "warm" is just
as
>> real as "good" or "bad", and might hold precious information.
>
>It does hold precious information - it is how we sense our world.
>I can take the information of my senses into account but the value of
>something is still good or bad.
>The "Wetness"of the kiss is important as are other factors in the
situation,
>for example, a "wet" kiss delivered by a cute girl you like has a different
>value to a wet kiss from a slobbering german shepard with bad breath, no?
Exact, the cute girl kiss has biological value (for the reproductive 'sex
drive' instinct of the body) and social value (but what a cold term ! I'd
prefer emotional value... :), while the dog's kiss only has emotional value
(in the best case, we share empathy, but nothing else). But one shouldn't
ignore that in each case, spit is exchanged. Value is multidimentional : by
initiating physical contact, I exchange an emotional and biological message,
and every stage can be judged according to its level.
>
>>
>> On the hot stove example : sure the guy doesn't jump out of it because
it's
>> hot, but because it's low value. But he would have done the same if he
had
>> sat on a porcupine, wouldn't he ? Do you mean to tell me that the
difference
>> between 'hot' and 'spiky' is unimportant ?
>
>The most important thing, I think, is the getting off of the low quality
>situation (be it stove or porcupine ;-) as quickly as possible.
Yeah, right. ;)
>
>> That, in some way I confess I do
>> not understand, this isn't included in his pre-intellectual awareness of
the
>> situation ?
>> I'm sure you understand now what I mean by saying that concentrating on
the
>> positive/negative axis is restrictive, and not in accordance with
>> experience.
>
>Maybe we're just not understanding each other?
Well, if I understand you, you're saying that everything we perceive
conceptually is deduced from a positive/negative experience (the classic MOQ
credo) that we call Value. Then, and only then are the other objective
and/or subjective characteristics deduced from that appreciation, that
primary perception. My objection is that this 'primary perception' isn't
primary. It involves two apects : the perception, and the judgment. In my
view, the non-dual perception comes before judgment. We perceive Value
before we call it Good or Bad. Good/Bad is only one dimension of Value, and
other dimensions are NOT deduced from it, but are an integral part of
non-dual perception. If I stroke some bark, or felt, the roughness or
softness isn't deduced from 'valuing' or not the experience. I can like it,
and I can dislike it (since neither are biologically disruptive like my
previous examples), but the sensation stays the same, and is interpreted in
the same way.
One could understand that good/bad is secondary, but that's not what I'm
saying either. I don't pass good/bad judgment "in my head", the
positive/negative value is inside all along, but so are the physical
characteristics. They are facets of the same jewel, if you prefer. Different
angles of the truth. Pirsig is destroying this beautiful complexity by
forcing everything into ethics.
Evolution is going toward 'betterness', but Pirsig is equating every part of
it with Goodness, without explaining HOW exactly can this goodness be
perceived. This is the source of a long list of recriminations from members
of this forum and its sister one : Pirsig tells us we are free when
following DQ without explaining *how* you follow DQ. Well, here's a tip : do
not follow anything that gives simple answers. Value isn't one-dimentional.
The worst thing Pirsig ever wrote, I believe, is this : "The Metaphysics of
Quality says that if moral judgments are essentially assertions of value and
if value is the fundamental ground-stuff of the world, then moral judgments
are the fundamental ground-stuff of the world." (Lila, Chp. 12)
The sophism, I believe, is obvious. The difference between value and
'assertions of value' is ignored. Therefore, BAM ! Everything falls back
into ethics, the "rational morality" aberration is born, and a depressing
list of MOQ justifications can be invented for any act, no matter how
heinous...
[snip]
>> I think in his quest to understand the origins and importance of morals,
>> Pirsig ignored the fact that value is multidimentional, and that when
your
>> rubb your hand across a surface, the good/bad feeling isn't the only
>> information that reaches you. You also get a feeling of its texture, for
>> one. That didn't fit in his "Quality" scheme, so he ignored it, but it
>> doesn't mean we should do the same.
>
>But I don't think he did ignore it, in SODaV, he states that:
>"In the third box are biological senses: senses of touch, sight, hearing,
>smell and taste.
>The MoQ follows the empirical tradition here in saying that the senses are
>the starting point of reality (see ;-)
>but all importantly it includes a sense of value. Values are phenomena, to
>ignore them is to misread the world.....this primary sense is a kind of
gate
>keeper for everything else an infant learns...."
>So he is not trying to ignore the importance of the information the other
>senses acquire, he is reiterating the presence and importance of a sense of
>Value!
He does a very good job of telling us how we were trained to ignore the
'subjective' side of reality, this I agree with.
My problem, as I'll state once more, is that he (in ZAMM) equates Quality
with the Tao, and then in the MOQ slap it back into the Good/Bad divide. The
Tao is beyond good and evil, beyond morals, beyond everything. Saying
Quality (or Value) is the force 'behind' the concepts of Beauty, Truth and
Goodness is OK, but saying it is *only* Goodness ignores the depths of the
Tao. It creates all kind of nasty confusions for those who haven't (and
cannot, for lack of any indication how) experienced the Dharmakaya light
(where distinctions are dissolved into pure Quality).
It does to morals what Pirsig hated about esthetics : it kills Goodness by
making it the subject of Reason.
Pirsig thought Goodness was 'before' Truth and Reason and historically, he
is right. But as he stated in ZAMM, "at the time of the Greeks, arete and
social status were equivalent". Clearly not what we need now.
What we need now isn't Goodness 'before' Truth and Reason, but Goodness
'beyond' Truth and Reason : in other words, the vaunted 'Fifth level'.
[snip]
>> This world is chaotic. You don't survive in it because you follow a
system,
>> even one based on Quality, but because you follow Quality itself. John is
>> right, it's the path that's important, not the destination.
>
>Yes, to follow Quality is by far the most noble path to take.
>But I thought that's what Pirsig was saying?!
In ZAMM, yes. Then he gave us a catechism (even though he warned us about
it).
Be good
Denis
PS : I'll have more to say about the 'Fifth Level', but that'll be in my
answer to Bo. To be continued... ;)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:27 BST