Hi Kevin, Horse, and Group:
Kevin, as much as you're bemused by those in the group who refer only
to the parts of Pirsig's work they agree with I’m equally bemused by your
selective use of Pirsig quotes to support your own predisposed beliefs.
So let us not sink into fruitless arguments about whose quotes are most
reflective of Pirsig's views or whose interpretations of the "underlying
meanings" of the MoQ are "true." We can only present our respective
views as clearly and concisely as we can, always making the effort to
fully understand an opposing viewpoint.
I interpret your basic argument to be that Pirsig missed the boat by not
giving mysticism its own level above the intellectual since mysticism is
closer to Dynamic Quality. The key quotation from Pirsig that you've used
several times as the basic premise of your argument is the one on pages
187-8 where you say, "Pirsig clearly notes that there exists a Dynamic
morality which is superior to intellectual morality."
Here’s the entire quote:
"First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of
biological life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes
that established the supremacy of the social order over biological life--
conventional morals--proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft
and the like. Third, there were moral codes that established the
supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order--democracy,
trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there's a
fourth Dynamic morality which isn't a code. He supposed you could call it
a ‘code of Art' or something like that, but art is usually thought of as such
a frill that the title undercuts its importance. The morality of the brujo in
Zuni--that was Dynamic morality."
Notice that when he gets to Dynamic morality he drops the repeated
phrase, "that established the supremacy of" from his parallel construction
of the preceding sentences, indicating a hesitancy if not a downright
reluctance to assign "superiority" to the Dynamic aspect of his
metaphysical structure. Thus, the solidity of your basic premise is
weakened.
That alone, however, wouldn't be enough to completely cast out your
supremacy of DQ argument. But when you add Pirsig's many references
to the necessity for static-Dynamic unity, the question of DQ supremacy
becomes mute. "Without Dynamic Quality, the organism cannot grow.
Without static quality the organism cannot last. Both are needed." (P.170)
Which is to say without the static we wouldn't be here to argue about the
supremacy of the Dynamic. We wouldn’t survive for a minute. In terms of
sheer survival, one could reasonably argue that static quality is supreme.
Horse argues, rightly I believe, that Pirsig's metaphysics presents a
balance between rationalism and mysticism with neither superior to other
but two aspects of the same thing. In a similar but not exactly the same
vein, I argue that static and Dynamic are but two sides to the same coin
in the sense that you can't have one without the other. Both are equally
supreme for creation and preservation of reality.
Horse also makes the excellent point that you and others confuse and
conflate the mystic (the vessel), mysticism (the approach) and mystic
experience (DQ). Perhaps the discussion would be served if you would
respond to this criticism by explaining precisely what you mean by
"mysticism." If it's a bunch of monks chanting UUUMMMMMM in a
socialistic monastery, I'll stick with the Victorians any day. But if its
individuals pursuing beauty through science or art, maybe we can agree
after all.
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:56 BST