SQUAD, STRUAN, KEN:
KEN: Please don't consider "the mysticism debate to be resolved", as you
put it. Its not that I'm some zealot who is trying to introduce
irrelevant ideas. I persist in the defense of mysticism because I
believe its Pirsig's view that mysticism offers an alternative vision of
his MOQ. In other words, Pirsig's MOQ can be more fully appreciated and
even more richly visualized. The author did study in India, perhaps the
origin of mystical religions. He uses the story of the Zuni shaman
repeatedly to relate the MOQ to mysticism. Again, its not that I want to
import some pointless tangent into the MOQ discussion, I think the very
heart of his MOQ is mysticism.
I too was raised as a Baptist and so presumed to understand your
misunderstanding. I once lived in the same bible-belt, fundementalist
world view, and suffered under the same misconceptions. I recognized
them right away in your post. (Please don't think I was suggesting that
reading a book was an extraordinary event for you, I just meant that
"complexity" seemed to me a word you had lifted from a specific book
with a different context. It seemed to mean more than just the noun form
of "complex", but you didn't explain. So I was asking in an oblique
way.)
KEN & STRUAN: Another reason to keep the debate open is that Struan's
report was incomplete. The five characteristics listed by Struan (Cool
name! HELLO. )describe the mystical experience, but not mysticism per
se. It would be very much like describing a Dynamic Quality event and
letting that description stand as a definition of the MOQ.
Also the resolution you suggest, that mysticism is a "subset of
materialism", sounds false and dismissive to me. Its not so much a
resolution, but a sweeping under the rug. Further, strickly speaking,
there is no "material" at all in the MOQ.
As the author says, "Its all Quality, every last bit of it". Even the
Rocky Mountains are free of "substance". (Pirsig still hates Aristotle
for inventing the nasty stuff.) In the MOQ those seemingly fixed ranges
are all just inorganic patterns of value.
Also the author refers to mysticism repeatedly in his explainations of
the MOQ. Lila contains lots of explicit comparisons to and compromises
with mysticism. Too bad its not indexed for such things. I copied some
relevant, but lengthy passages from the book into my posts of last week.
Maybe you'd care to check it out. Mary and I had been engaged in a
similar debate.
Forgive me in advance. I'm going to attempt to describe and clearify the
five characteristics of mysticism listed by Struan. I will try to
re-phrase them in a way that is MOQ and Mystical at the same time. Wish
me luck, and if I don't make it please tell my wife I loved her very
much.
1) A belief that Dynamic Quality events (such as the mystical experience
itself, revelation, insight, epiphiny and intuition) are the primary
empirical reality and that static intellectual patterns are not all
they're cracked up to be.
2) Realization that the world of forms is an illusion. Realization that
subjects and objects are not the ultimate reality, but are instead the
creations of that ultimate reality, namely Quality.
3) A belief that reality is composed of one thing; Quality. All is one.
At One ment, atonement. Thou art that. I and the father are one. In
spite of the illusion cemented by subject object metaphysics, reality is
made of Quality and nothing else.
The mystic experiences a loss of self and a identifies with a unitive
consciousness.
4 & 5) Dynamic Quality itself is ultimately a mystery and transcends our
ability to conceptualize it in ordinary way. A Dynamic Quality event is
a rare and powerful experience for those of us traped in the world of
illusory subjects and objects "Space and time didn't matter where I was
and they seem meaningless in comparison to what I just saw!" The
mystical experience includes a sense of having experienced "eternity";
of somehow seeing and understanding all of time and space all at once.
I know this is terrible and inadequate. A total fusion of the MOQ with
mysticism should probably be attemped by some graduate student as a
thesis. I only hope to demonstate that the terms used to describe
mysticism and the terms used by Pirsig to describe the MOQ are
effectively interchangable. I'm sure certain qualifications could be
useful as there are many forms of mysticism and some match the MOQ
better than others.
This seems to me more than just a family resemblence. It's been my area
of study since about 1980. My liberal studies degree was a self-styled
mixture of history, philosophy, literature and art. It was essentially a
degree in the history of ideas and have continued the quest in earnest
ever since. In short, I feel confident in my ability to compare ideas
and cosmologies.
I hope that by insisting on the relevance of mysticism, you will only
find the MOQ that much more exciting and appealing. It seems to me that
the mystics were always stuck when it came to explaining themselves
because their intuitions and insights were so far ahead of any
"scientific knowledge" about the world. But Western science and the
spirit of discovery, in spite of the problems with SOM, has opened up
previously hidden realities. Lots of these discoveries have only
confirmed the intuitions and insights of the mystics, like the
superstring theory we all find so exciting. The discovery of other
"riddles" is physics are the same with respect to confirming mysticism's
world view. Pirsig's paper, his third work, is another example. The
discovery of the unconscious mind, the collective unconscious, the
development of the principles of evolution and lots of other "advanced"
science has only helped us see what the mystics have been saying all
along. Pirsig's MOQ is remarkable and different than mysticism because
it dares spell out the nature of the ultimate mystery. He dares to
describe the workings of Dynamic Quality itself, whereas the mystics
traditionally claim utter ineffability. Pirsig has articulated in fairly
precise terms, what had formerly been described in cryptic metaphors,
love poetry, and religious imagery. Pirsig and others have made
mysticism alot less mysterious.
Thanks for your time, I know its a long one.
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 - 16:02:48 BST