Hi Focs:
I'll skip the part where I beg everyone to stick close to the text. Thanks,
Diana.
Thanks to Erik and Jaap. Whew! I've decided to stick around afterall.
Glenn, in my opinion, you've destroyed your own credibility as a
philosopher. And by the way, you should read that offensive paragraph again
because I've never EVEN SEEN peyote.
Now, to the issues...
NOETIC and INEFFABLE.
As Erik told us, that is James' description of the mystical experience. I'd
like to talk about that.
I think its pretty clear that the peyote experience had a NOETIC quality.
You know, he weaved a web like never before. His mind turned toward the
examination of complex realities and all that. I don't have to type those
quotes again, you remember. And it seems pretty safe to say that Pirsig
himself was pretty impressed by his insights. I think he was trying to say
that he learned something very important that night.
Several posters have complained that Pirsig's insight into the plain-spoken
indians isn't very spectacular and that it doesn't seem very mystical
either. But of course you're only reacting to Pirsig's re-telling and its
very much a had-to-be-there kind of thing. That's where the ineffability
comes into the picture. But hold that thought, and let me stick to the
noetic quality of these experiences...
CONTEMPLATING YOUR NAVEL
A mystical experience doesn't look like much from the OUTSIDE. To an
observer who has never had such an experince, a peyote eater just looks like
some crazy-eyed fool. You've seen plenty of parodies of the tripped-out
hippie who fascinated with some little trivial thing. Jim on Taxi, for
example. Or Donald Sutherland in the bathtub with his students in ANIMAL
HOUSE. Dharma's Dad, Cheech and Chong. You've seen a million of 'em. And
there's a little truth in it, but they're mostly just popular
misconceptions. Its better to listen to Pirsig or anyone who knows what
they're talking about and who values the experience. Everything important
about it is inside, an experience that can't be appreciated by someone who
just there watching. There's not much to see - not unless you're actually
having the experience.
FROM THE INSIDE it doesn't really matter what you "bore in on with
intensity". You'll end up spinning a web no matter what grabs the attention.
One of the reason's that the web is such a good metaphor is that each part
is connected to every other part, so it doesn't really matter where you
start. It like your mind is going beneath the surface of things and any
object or event will seem totally fascinating because you're sort of seeing
it for the first time. Everything seems amazing, divine, profound. Anything
can serve as the door, as a way to begin to peel back the illusions. The
de-hallucinogenic effect doesn't require Indians or Anthropologists or
anything special. Yet nothing is trivail or unimportant in the mystical
state of mind, that's why Jim on Taxi can stare at a peanut for hours. But
the secret is that Jim is no idiot. Those who fail to see the profound,
divine, fascinating and spectacular nature of a peanut - those people are
the real idiots. : ) That's what the NOETIC nature of the experience is all
about.
I don't mean to suggest that Pirsig's thoughts about the Indians are
inconsequential, not at all. I'm just trying to provide some idea's about
the NOETIC quality of mystical experience. I've spun web's around various
things myself, but the same basic picture ultimately emerges no matter where
the web begins. And there's certainly the feeling that you've seen a very
real picture. You really feel like you've learned something about who and
what you really are. That's what I meant by "cosmic confidence". It creates
a deep center, a well to draw from, so to speak. There is plenty of
Western-style psychological data to back this up. These kind of experiences
really do help people.
But its really hard to what what has been seen. That's the ineffability part
of it. And since I'm very short on time, I'll just say a little about it.
And I've got to cheat a little to do it...
Bodvar included a quote, from somewhere past the first three chapters, that
showed how the mystical objections to his metaphysics would be tougher to
beat. (Than the Positivists) And this exactly about the ineffability. The
mystics object to Pirsig's MOQ precisely because it "effs" the ineffable. It
describes the indescribe-able. It speaks of the Tao, so to speak. And this,
my friends, is just one more whopping piece of evidence that mysticism is
central to the MOQ. Otherwise, what are the mystic objections all about?
I don't think the MOQ can be properly understood without this mystical
element. And this kind of conversation absolutely depends on a proper
understanding. I mean, we have to agree what ON the lines, before we can
even begin to grasp what's between the lines. And with novels that's where
the action really is. We're so far behind that we haven't even begun.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST