From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 05 2003 - 20:02:45 BST
Paul, Scott and all:
[Paul said:]
Okay, the intellect may extend by metaphor or analogy, reorganise,
synthesise and analyse existing ideas within predefined linguistic or
mathematical rules and thus create "new" ideas or structures. I would
associate "Dynamic insight" with something like the redefining of some
of those rules into entirely new paradigms evolving to accommodate
experience in new harmonious structures.
dmb says:
Right. That's what I was getting at with the distinction between giving
birth and shuffling things around. I also tend to think the former,
genuinely creative act is a big deal, a rare event, an inspired act of
genius. Solutions like the one that emerged from Poincare's subliminal self
tend to produce a whole new gestalt, if not a new paradigm. But maybe this
kind of thing happens all the time in a zillion tiny ways and we only like
the dramatic cases because they are so illustrative. They demonstrate so
clearly that something other than intellect is at work in the creative
process. Ask any artist. They'll tell you that the "brain" only gets in the
way.
[Scott said:]
The ancient philosophers had no problem conceiving (and in some cases,
like Plotinus, of experiencing) the Divine Intellect. Though it would
fit in so well with the rest of the MOQ, Pirsig prefers to impoverish
the concept of intellect by assigning it solely to SQ.
[Paul replied:]
I disagree that Neo-Platonism would fit in well with the MOQ. In the MOQ
framework, static intellectual quality is subordinate to Dynamic
Quality. ...A divine intellect would contain the "divine truth" that
inferior human intellects may aspire to, would it not?
dmb says:
I'd argue that neo-Platonism fits with the MOQ to the extent that they are
both grappling with the mystical. I'd guess that the "Divine intellect" of
the neo-Plationists and Pirisg's DQ both refer to the same non-thing. I
mean, I'd guess that the neo-Platonists were putting the emphasis on
"Divine" and thereby making a distinction between that and regular, earthly
intellect. Its only a guess, but I wouldn't give up on fitting together the
pieces of that puzzle. I'd even bet a hefty sum that it would make a very
pretty picture.
[Paul:]
I would argue that one has Quality, creating thought, and thought
creating the "thinker". There is no pre-existing "thinker" in the MOQ.
dmb says:
Yep. Short and sweet. This is how Quality preceeds and creates both subject
and object. And notice again how much this resembles mysticism, this time in
the assertion that there is no self, that the separate self, the ego
consciousness, is an illusion. At-One-ment. The Buddha walks up to a hotdog
stand and says, "Make me One with Everything." (rim shot, with canned
laughter.)
"The Dynamic reality that goes beyond words is the constant focus of Zen
teaching. Because of their habituation to a world of words, philosophers
do not often understand Zen. When philosophers have trouble
understanding the distinction between static and Dynamic Quality it can
be because they are trying to include and subordinate all Quality to
thought patterns. The distinction between static and Dynamic quality is
intended to block this." [letter from Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt,
quoted in "Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality"]
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 : Sun Oct 05 2003 - 20:02:03 BST