Horse, Mary, and the lurker who is tempted to post:
Glad you posted on Christmas, Horse, I'm required to be here at work and
really appreciate the "company". And thanks for addressing the issues
directly.
Do snails have intellect?
Pirsig says the levels are distinct from each other, except that
patterns in the higher level still participate in the lower levels from
which they emerged. The biological organisms still retain inorganic
value patterns. Societies still have within them, the biological and
inorganic patterns they left behind. We are exchaning intellectual
patterns, but we still have the three prior levels in us. And so on.
No level jumping allowed! Oh sure, its fun until somebody gets hurt.
But what are you going to say when the rocks get together and start a
hunting party? Or when a virus tries to get into Yale? It's an gradual
evolutionary, upward climb toward greater freedom and greater
complexity. The word we use to describe the awareness of the snail can't
be "intellect" because thats what we're calling Pirsigs top level.
I imagine everything, even the inorganic stuff, is in direct relation to
Quality. Even the snail must have that "pre-intellectual awareness".
Pirsig says we have that same kind of awareness before we form a concept
or mental symbol of the experience. Certainly our tiny snail has sense
organs and is aware of its' enviroment well enough to survive, but it
forms no concepts about the sensory data. For the snail, reality is
permanently "pre-conceptual". Hope that doesn't sound too Victorian.
(The era was named for the Queen of England, Victoria the virgin Queen,
who reigned for most of the 19th century.)
Isn't Pirsing trying to do away with all the isms?
Pirsig is NOT trying to rid the world of concepts, He's NOT interested
in destroying any of the religions, philosophies, or ideologies. They
each have their own value. He is trying to rid the world of subjects and
objects. More precisely, his MOQ is about recognizing or realizing that
subjects and objects aren't the ultimate reality, but are only creations
of the ultimate reality, which is Dynamic Quality. He's saying that the
subjective point of view is kind of an illusion created by intellectual
patterns of value.
He's saying that objects don't have quality, they are Quality. Like the
man said, Every last bit of it is Quality.
What does mysticism have to do with the MOQ?
The following is from the "Guidebook to Zen and the Art...", starting on
page 26.
"The word "mysticism" is frequently associated, in popular usage, with
occult phenomena and with people who alledgedly adept at reading or
controling such phenomena. What I have in mind here is not the popular
usage but the way the word has been used, within the spiritual
traditions of both East and West, to refer to the height of spiritual
attainment. In this latter sense, "mysticism" is always associated with
some sort of unitive consciousness, a consciousness experientially
united with ultimate reality."
"What is considered ultimate reality may be variously named in different
mystical traditions. It may be called Brahman or Tao or Buddha or God or
QUALITY. ...Is there a map that we can use to follow this mystical
journey?...ZMM itself is such a map."
To say mysticism is not related to the MOQ is like saying frying is not
related to cooking. Frying is a kind of cooking like the MOQ is a type
of mysticism. Pirsig's ideas are not cheapened by the label, they are
confirmed by countless mystics from all over the world and all through
time. His is an articulation of mysticism unprecidented in our culture.
He's brought a famously ineffable experience with the domain of
philosophy and given us new handles to grasp what was formerly beyond
conceptualization.
I hope this issue becomes an official topic in the future.
Wet, sloppy kisses,
David B
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:46 BST