MARY, BODVAR, GLOVE, ETC.:
Your posts have made me excited about coming to work, where i have
access to a computer. I've been coming in extra early to read them
before i start my actual work. It's a little cruel to single people out,
cause everyone's doing their best, but Mary and Bodvar have posted ideas
that are so challenging and exciting that i actually broke a sweat
thinking about them. Thank you !
MARY has been posting all the most crucial quotes from Pirsig, and in an
order that makes alot of sense. I agreed with almost every conclusion
she drew from them, except where she says "I have to disagree with the
Guidebook to ZMM on this, and since it was written prior to Lila even
the author may be ready to recant".
Mary, that is entirely too brave. To disagree with Pirsig himself and
the professional Philosopher who was approved by the author to explain
his ideas is very, very brave. I'm not saying there's anything wrong
with disagreement, and Pirsig is just a person like you and me.
I read both books and can't see why Pirsing would recant anything. As I
see it, ZMM spends alot of time describing the problem (Subject/Object
metaphysics) and just a little time explaining the solution (Quality).
Whereas in Lila he spends nearly all of the time explaining the solution
(the Metaphysics of Quality). Both books are about different aspects of
the same thing. Both books are entirely consistent and should even been
complimentary pieces of a whole.
But what i really want to address was the disagreement itself. You
object especially to a quote from the "Guidebook to ZMM" (P.26) where
Dr. DiSanto says "What is considered ultimate reality may be variously
named in different mystical traditions. It may be called Brahman or Tao
or Buddha or Quality". Here, obviously, Disanto is saying that Pirsig's
Quality is one of many kinds of mysticism. You equate mysticism with
religion which is a nit I'll pick another day. Then you object to
religion in general and quote some of Pirsig's cautionary criticisms on
sectarian religion "none of them told the whole truth" and on ritual
"the danger has always been that the rituals,...are mistaken for what
they merely represent"
I think you have transformed and exaggerated Pirsig's cautionary remarks
to the point where you completely reject religions. You say "because
it's so easy to take them literally rather than as an allegory for
Dynamic Quality". And I'll agree that is a real danger. Religious
fundementalism is the most obvious and extreme example of literalism.
Many people have died at the hands of these zealots, including American
abortion providers, etc..
But if I understand your objection correctly, we don't disagree very
much at all. You're not really "opposed to using allegories" You are
opposed to ABUSING allegories. And so am I.
But Pirsig makes the claim that these allegories, signposts, static
portrayals of Dynamic Quality, are very important and useful, if
understood properly - that is, not literally. All other forms of
mysticism recognize the danger and foolishness of the literal-minded.
And all forms of mysticism, including Pirsig's, can see through the
allegories, the metaphors, and literary images to the meaning beyond.
This kind of language is unavoidable in the discussion of anything
outside of Subject/Object metaphysics. Said another way, we need the
kind of transparent language that mysticism employs if we are to grapple
with the Metaphysics of Quality. I'm not saying you have to have earned
an English or Theology degree to talk about the MOQ, but it sure
wouldn't hurt.
Part of the reason Pirsig offers up the MOQ is to solve the problems in
SOM. And one of the most important problems with SOM is that it tends to
dismiss religious values, along with lots of other "romantic" values.
They aren't "verifiable" in a subject/object metaphysic. But as Pirsig
said in Lila, "The Metaphysics of quality ...says that the values of art
and morality and even religious mysticism are verifiable..." He saying
that the MOQ rescues these domains from the intellectual slums, where
they had been assigned in SOM. The whole thrust of his life's work is to
bring things like mysticism, art, and morality back to the center of
life where they belong.
I like to believe that Pirsig and others, people like C.G. Jung, Alan
Watts and Joseph Campbell, have helped me learn to see throught the
allegories, like brightr sunlight through a stained-glass window. (I'm
not bragging, just showing you an very churchy allegory.) :-)
Thanks again for the challenging fun,
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