From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jun 26 2003 - 00:55:39 BST
Hi Wim and all,
> Rick wrote 25 Jun 2003 09:58:41 -0400:
> 'I can't help but note that in the MoQ, the patterns of different levels
are
> supposed to be in conflict to a certain
> extent.'
WIM
> I always find it confused that in 'Lila' different levels are BOTH
presented
> as discrete AND as conflicting.
RICK
Yes, I've also had some trouble coming to terms with these two
characteristics.
WIM
> Pirsig seems to make a start ending that confusion in 'Lila's Child' with
> annotation 52 (published version):
> 'I think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in which
> one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing social
patterns
> and the other side intellectually opposes the existing social patterns.'
> I'd say that patterns of value of different levels cannot conflict,
because
> they are discrete. Only patterns of value belonging to the same level can.
> Intellectual patterns of value however consist of symbols that stand for
> patterns of experience of all levels. So intellectual patterns of value
that
> stand for intellectual patterns of value can conflict with intellectual
> patterns of value that stand for social patterns of value (which in their
> turn can conflict with intellectual patterns of value that stand for
> biological patterns of value etc.). It is not the levels themselves (or
the
> patterns of value of different levels) that conflict with each other, but
> their reflections on the intellectual level.
RICK
I don't have my copy of LC handy so I don't know what conflicts Pirsig is
addressing, but I'm not entirely sure I agree.
You concluded: "It is not the levels themselves (or the patterns of value of
different levels) that conflict with each other, but their reflections on
the intellectual level." But what kind of 'reflections' would they be if
the patterns they reflect aren't genuinely clashing?
Moreover, you said, "Intellectual patterns of value however consist of
symbols that stand for patterns of experience of all levels." But in LILA,
Pirsig tells us that prior to his Metaphysics of Quality there already was
one...SOM. He explains that SOM is just a Metaphysics of Quality in which
the first "post-intellectual" slice of "pre-intellectual" experience (pure
experience... pure Quality) is into Subject and Object. His Metaphysics of
Quality, by comparison, uses a different initial "post-intellectual"
slice... Dynamic and static. The levels (all 4 of the them) are a secondary
'post-intellectual' slice of the static component of the initial slice (you
with me so far?). That is, all four of the levels (I,B,S,I) only exist
'post-intellectually' to begin with and ALL are 'ideas that stand for
patterns of experience' or 'intellectual reflections of experience'. They
have all been 'deduced' from the raw experience (Quality). Prior to the
experience, pre-intellectually, there is only Quality. The levels,
including intellect, are supposed to be (post) intellectual reflections of
the experience of this initial undivided Quality. So defining intellect
(the 4th level) as "...symbols that stand for patterns of experience of all
levels" seems undesirable to me as it would make Intellect the only level
that doesn't reflect some aspect of pre-intellectual Quality, rather, it
would be reduced to reflecting a mere 3-levels of post-intellectual static
quality.
If given the choice between the discretionary nature of the levels and the
conflicting nature of the levels, I think I would sooner jettison the
discretionary nature. I would say that the levels are not entirely
discreet. They have fuzzy boundaries that defy precise definition on the
basis of experience alone (ie. for the sake of 'precision' Pirsig draws the
line for social patterns at humans alone; note that this is a policy-based
boundary and not one that necessarily jives with experience; many convincing
arguments have been made in this forum that social patterns are sometimes
found among other animals). The levels conflict with each other precisely
over where these boundaries should be drawn. I think I prefer that solution
right now, but I'll think about it some more.
take care
rick
I can't understand why people are frightened by new ideas. I'm frightened of
old ones. - John Cage
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 26 2003 - 00:54:21 BST