Rob responds to Glove and Mary (welcome to the discussion, Mary!)
To Glove:
I'm not sure, but perhaps we are in agreement. I'm just being "the glass is half
empty" kind of guy!!
>>>Glove says: ...the way I see it, the four levels are only little pieces
of truth and as such, are impossible to consider into an organized whole in
themselves. Instead of examining only the four levels of which we are aware
of, we must also learn to consider that which we are unaware of, which from
a normal prospective of reality is impossible to do.
I definately agree with that. To me, however, the new perspective we need is that
reality is made of patterns of quality which are experienced. Isn't that enough?
By going onto the levels, a bunch of "pieces" are added to the puzzle of life,
which don't tell us anything that most everyone did not know before: order is
better than chaos, life is better than non-life, a bunch of lives working together
are better than each man for himself, quality thinking seaches for truth instead
of popularity and status. Are these that profound to be included a metaphysics?
(Glove writes)....But it is an attempt,in my opinion, at concerning ourselves with
the Quality of thought and mind in its totality. Can we agree on this?
I definately agree! I think Pirisig is great. I'm just not sure yet if I agree
with him...
(Glove writes) It seems to me that it would be tantamount to attempting to put a
jig saw puzzle together without a surface upon which to lay the pieces, having to
balance the entire puzzle in your hands and yet at the same time digging in your
pockets to retrieve the rest of the pieces you've found.
When organizing reality, shouldn't the playing surface be as unrestricted as
possible? By structuring reality into levels the peices are forced to be placed
in a certain way.
But... What if the levels say, 'why not *start* with the pieces here'? I could
support this view. But I don't think this is what you are saying...
Glove, I'm really not trying to sound anal here. I have one of these logical
minds that attacks things from every angle. If Pirisig is going to graduate to my
life philsophy, it has to withstand my imagination first.
I have so much to discuss with you still about the intellect, and the New
Scientist Article, but no time now. I also skimmed your "99%" solution post. If
you do have time, I would definately listen to any feedback you have on my Sunday
post.
Mary, I'm really sorry but I have to get to bed now and I would be up way to late
responding to you! I'll get back eventaully. I hope most everything is included
here anyway. The only thing I can think quickly is that we can't quit
questioning. I just want to get at the truth, so I hope you aren't put off by my
dismantling...
Am I echoing your definition of the intellectual level?
The intellectual level is a move to higher quality where thought becomes free of
social value.
Democracy? Check!.
Freedom of Speech? Check!
Justice? Check!
Eating healthfully instead of traditionally? Check!
Intercultural Marriage? Check!
This does work compared to the definitions that I had thought of. So this is how
Pirisig's system works...
1. Order is better than chaos (inorganic quality).
2. Life is better than nonlife (biological quality).
3. Lives working together and cooperating is better than savagery (social
quality)
4. Ideas searching for truth are better than ideas influenced by needs for social
status, popularity or power. (intellectual quality).
Mary, I have to disagree with my going with Krishnamurti just because it works.
Before I read Krishnamurti, my thoughts were one with the fundamentalist Christian
views of my family. At the time, that worked too, but I questioned anyway. It
was very difficult, but now I a more well-rounded honest-with-myself person.
Krishnamurti makes sense, but so does Pirisig. I can't let go of either until I
understand *why* one, or the other, or a combinition of both, is best. I'm not at
the point where I am comfortable with my thoughts on Pirsig.
Please don't be afraid of dismantling Pirsig. Sorry if this sounds like
lecturing, but one who seeks truth must not be afraid to question anything. If
the MOQ is the truth, it will withstand scrutiny and will also be stronger because
of the scrutiny.
God, I hate how I sounded above but I'm too lazy to retype it! The point is that
I have some ideas, and am wondering what you think...
1. The
Mary Wittler wrote:
> Hi Rob, Glove, and All,
>
> I've been away working on my presentation of the MOQ to the Humanist
> Forum lately. If you're interested, it's the topic of the month on the
> LS.
>
> Glove quoting Rob:
> > >These were my preliminary *intuitions* why we should forget about the
> > levels.
> > >
> > >1. Along the lines of Kevin's posts, I questioned the usefulness of the
> > >levels. The levels explained perfectly issues that which I already knew
> > but
> > >they never helped me with something I didn't know. My conclusion is
> > different
> > >from Kevin, however. Instead of using the levels for theoretical purposes
> > >only, don't use them at all. A theory with no predictive power must
> > somehow
> > >be flawed.
> >
> > Glove:
> >
> > I disagree with you here. Since we are here examining Robert Pirsig's
> > Metaphysics of Quality, we are bound by our controlled folly, so to speak,
> > to examine all of it and not disband it. We have been invited by Mr. Pirsig
> > to expand upon
> > it, if we can, but not destroy it.
>
> Mary (me):
> I agree with you Glove that we should not attempt to dismantle the MOQ.
> All the pieces are there for a reason. But I disagree with Rob that the
> levels should be discarded because they are useless. Perhaps it's only
> my ego at work here, but the levels consistently give me a logical way
> to confirm what I already thought about an issue. True, I already
> thought it, but before Pirsig I had no way to justify or verify my
> thoughts - they were just my thoughts, my opinions, no more or less
> valuable than anyone else's.
> >
> > Rob:
> > Krishnamurti has help me 10 times more
> > than
> > >Pirsig in discovering truth. The aspect of the MOQ saying reality is made
> > of
> > >experienced patterns explains why we should be in touch with reality.
> > >Krishnamurti and other Eastern philosophers concentrate on the how --
> > through
> > >great attention, listening, and nonjudgmental observation -- not thinking
> > >about levels.
>
> Mary:
> Then I would wholeheartedly encourage you to continue with
> Krishnamurti. Whatever works and brings peace of mind is the most
> important thing. BTW, as a child I had a female cat named Krishna, and
> a rooster named Siddartha. This all came about because of my reading
> Herman Hesse's series Siddartha, Demain, and finally Magister Ludi.
> Well, he WAS pretty smart for a chicken! Later, I learned that Krishna
> is a male deity and thus a real misnomer for my cat.
>
> (Rob?:)
> > >Definition B: Intellectual quality is not everything that comes from
> > thought.
> > >Thought makes sense of the lower levels to understand what is good. True
> > >intellectual quality, consequently, is only that which frees the mind to
> > have
> > >ideas. Freedom of speech is intellectual quality. Studying nutrition is
> > >intellectual quality. Eating a sandwich is biological quality.
> > >
> > >If this definition is true, then Pirisig contradicts himself equating
> > things
> > >such as justice with the intellectual level. Is the innate value of
> > justice
> > >that it frees us to understand things better?
> > >
> > >Futhermore, is an idea -- however new and truthful -- always better than
> > >everything else? Is an idea always more important than a life, for
> > example?
> > >
> > >c) Intellectual quality is concepts that change reality.
> > >
> > >Same problem as Definition A. Anyone who feels right about an issue,
> > probably
> > >has some sort of concept backing up their belief. Anyone, consequently,
> > could
> > >have some good or bad idea and slap a label of "intellectual" quality on
> > it.
> > >Truth comes then comes from debate/logic and so forth.
> > >
> > >Perhaps this was the intent of Pirsig's MOQ: to direct everything to the
> > >highest level known as the intellect. Don't follow honour, tradition,
> > >physical pleasure but always try first to
> > >question/conceptualize/experience/understand what is right.
> > >
> > >I could agree with this treatment, but I don't think Pirsig meant for this
> > >interpretation. Sexual activity, for example, was always labeled
> > biological
> > >quality despite any understanding of what one was doing. Furthermore, this
> > >treatment takes a lot of bite out of the MOQ. It simply justifies the use
> > of
> > >reason, which is what the classical philosophers taught centuries ago.
> >
>
> Me:
> My key for understanding the intellectual level is to remind myself that
> it IS a level and as such is defined by the same parameters defining any
> other level. The intellectual level is not defined as having ideas. We
> had ideas all the time before the level was born. What sets it apart
> from the others is that we finally statically latched into the concept
> that it is wrong to deride intellectual VALUES just because they don't
> support the social level. The birth of this idea was the birth of the
> intellectual level.
>
> Prior to the existence of the intellectual level, we were thinking
> people with exactly the same brains we have now. The difference is that
> we allowed (not only allowed, but insisted) that our thoughts support
> and be of use to the social level. The whole reason the intellect
> exists is to enhance the stability of the social level. But the
> intellect is not the intellectual level. The definition I like is
> Bodvar's SOLAQI (Subject Object Logic as Q Intellect). The pattern of
> thinking used by the SOM is the intellectual level, and it is actually a
> level rather than a social value because it has freed itself from
> accepting conclusions that are ONLY good for the social level. The
> intellectual level allows us to seek the "truth" without regard to the
> social consequences, just as the social level seeks its own most
> workable form without regard to its parent the biological level. So, I
> agree with you, Glove (see below) up to a point. We differ in that I
> believe there is an intellectual level with a set of values unique to
> itself, and that those values are a logical search for truth without the
> hindrance of social values.
>
> > Glove:
> >
> > I see that you failed to mention the definition of intellect I advanced some
> > time ago, which I think helps to solve the problems you list above. In my
> > definition, reason is assigned to the social level, as is logic. The reason
> > :) for this is that both reason and logic are agreements made within the
> > culture derived from in order to further unambiguous communication. Not only
> > is language culturally derived, but so is our sense of color apparently,
> > which was once thought to be a "universal truth". No more. See this article
> > in New
> > Scientist magazine:
> >
> > http://www.newscientist.com/cgi-in/pageserver.cgi?/ns/19990320/newsstory3.ht
> > ml
>
> Best Wishes,
> Mary
>
> MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST