Rick,
RICK
>Okay. I see now where we're going in different directions. You're
>thinking that some people have pupils that over-dilate and let in more light
>than their brains can handle, and that that light is the D-light.
Yes, that's what I think. And it's also what I think Pirsig thinks, because
that's what he says.
PIRSIG
...he thought that the light was nothing more than involuntary widening of
the iris of the eyes of the observer that lets in extra light and makes
things look brighter, ...
RICK
>I'm thinking that Pirsig is saying that in the same way there are
>events in the audio spectrum that are naturally outside our range of hearing
>(ie. dog-whistles), there are also events in the light spectrum that are
>naturally outside our range of vision.
Why would you think this, if he doesn't say it? He just says "extra light",
not light at different frequencies. By extra light he is referring
to its intensity, not its frequency. That's why he says it makes things
look "brighter". He doesn't say he saw new colors, like ultra-violet and
infra-red.
RICK
There are some problems with this interpretation though. Take this
quote:
PIRSIG
>Phaedrus remembered [the light] from the time with Dusenberry at the peyote
>meeting, although he had assumed that it was just an optical illusion
>produced by the drug and not of any great importance.
Well, the key word here is "just". Part of him *does* think the D. light is
an optical illusion. He said as much when he said earlier: "[it] was a kind of
hallucinatory light, produced by optic stimulation". In typical Pirsig
fashion, he simultaneously does and doesn't think there is something mystical
or supernatural about the light. An earlier quote says quite plainly: "He
didn't think of this light as some sort of supernatural occurrence...he was
sure it *was* grounded in physical reality [emphasis his]". (Oh, and he might
think DQ is the most natural thing in the universe, but he uses 'supernatural'
in this sense to mean something not grounded in physical reality, and this
sure ain't DQ.) It seems any attempt at interpreting Pirsig precisely is
going to fall short because his thinking is bollixed to begin with.
RICK
Pirsig may not even realize that most people don't have the 'physical
predisposition' to seeing extra light that he does.
Hmm. Is this Rick's interpretation of the D. light, or Rick's interpretation
of Pirsig's interpretation? If you remember (it seems so long ago now), we
started this discussion to try to decide whether Pirsig thought people
saw the light, but dismiss it (your preferred position), or don't see it
(my preferred position).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
RICK
> > But to Pirsig the light is the objective physical manifestation of a
> >'dynamic intrusion upon a static situation (p 389)." That is, it's an
> >objective manifestation of Dynamic Quality!
GLENN
> Not always. He says it "often" is.
PIRSIG
In a Metaphysics of Quality, however, this light is important because it
often appears associated with *undefined auspiciousness*, this is with
Dynamic Quality. It signals a Dynamic intrusion upon a static situation.
When there is a letting go of static patterns the light occurs (p389).
RICK
The light is always CAUSED by Dynamic Quality (that's why it's
*important* in the MOQ). He just saying that it's just not always
ASSOCIATED with DQ because not everyone who sees the light has a mechanism
to explain DQ. I think the last two sentences of this quote make it pretty
clear that he thinks the light is produced by the interplay of DQ and SQ.
Well, an "intrusion" and a "letting go" are pretty different. It seems to
me that the "letting go" is what's key, and the DQ often follows.
He says "associated", which could mean "caused" or it could mean "correlated".
>From here, there are no good quotes to distinguish several interpretations,
but here are some I could accept for what Pirsig thinks:
1) low objectivity causes the pupils to widen. The D. effect is seen. DQ
will manifest itself in the objects that emit the light, if DQ is present
in them. If DQ is present, you will sense it. If you don't believe in it,
you'll attribute it to subjectivity or some spurious objective event.
Your objectivity could be lowered in many ways (spontaneously, eye drops,
peyote, meditation, your cultural beliefs, your religious beliefs)
2) pupils widen involuntarily and unpredictably in all people. When this
happens, the light goes in your brain, but before it gets to the perception
centers in the visual cortex, it is cut off if your objectivity is high. If
objectivity is low, the D. effect is seen. DQ will manifest itself...(rest
is same as 1)
3) pupils widen involuntarily but rarely in all people. When this happens,
the light is seen, but carries no mystic significance if the culture is too
objective. Since the effect is rare to begin with, objective cultures sweep
it under the rug. If objectivity is low, the full blown D. effect is seen,
with objects emiting the light as being carriers of DQ.
I like 2 best now and 1 was my previous interpretation, which is still sort
of OK. 3 is closest to yours and is also acceptable if you think he doesn't
mean "see" literally. I just don't think so. I think this is like the
"green flash" in this regard, where you don't really see it until you go out
and let your guard down. And that guard would be your "objective static
patterns".
GLENN
Your saying that Pirsig thinks the D. light is seen with the same
frequency in Western culture as other cultures, but is dismissed by people
who see it in our culture because of our cultural static filters.
However, Pirsig says that in our culture "nobody sees it", not that the
people who see it dismiss it.
PIRSIG:
But nobody sees it because the cultural definition of what is real and what
is unreal filters out the Dharmakaya light....
RICK
He must be using 'see' as 'notice'... If not, this quote would be
nonsensical. If the light is 'actually physically unseen' than what could it
mean for 'cultural definitions of what is real and what is unreal' to
'filter' the D-light out? What would be filtered out? And what would it be
filter out of?
Good question.
But see interpretation 2 and think of "a cultural definition of what is real
and unreal" as being what causes "your objectivity to be high".
RICK
I believe he's saying that the same (very small) percentage of our
culture can see the light, but less from our culture recognize it and so it
SEEMS much more prevalent outside of our culture. If our culture adopted a
less objective mythos, it would suddenly find many more members that can
'see the light'.
That's possible. Interpretation 2 is also OK with this.
Glenn
--__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 16:01:56 BST