Dann, Jaap,
I think you will find that neither the pour-soi nor the en-soi in Sartrean
philosophy equate to Dynamic Quality. This is because these are terms to
describe some "that" which exists. DQ is not a "that".
The in-itself: the "as if" play acting of the everyday world .
The for-itself: consciousness (if you like), that which is not any role or
object because it is the (vanishing) Subject, and the free chooser of all
that play acting.
Further, things are somewhat confused by the fact that the en-soi are not
really the "in itself" things on the Kantian noumena model that the name
suggests, rather they are merely what they appear to be, and they appear to
be what they are in virtue of our choices.
Sartre's philosophy is not antithetical to Pirsig or even (as I have argued
on Sartre lists) to certain kinds of atheistic religion like Buddhism
(compare what it means for Sartre to will *freedom* "for it's own sake", and
the idea of enlightenment or *freedom from attachment*), but you can't read
Pirsig into the en-soi/pour-soi distinction in any conclusive or useful way
- the two thinkers start out by being interested in quite different
problems. DQ is definitely *not* the pour-soi! And I'm not sure we can say
that the en-soi are really SQ either: because Sartre has really quite a
different idea about what value is and where it comes from. Sartre thinks
that value is invented, while Pirsig stresses that it is "out there" as real
as the mountains and trees. SQ is an attempt to capture some leading edge
of value: for Sartre that leading edge doesn't exist, and existence is
continuous but somehow horrid and incomprehensible and devoid of value:
"viscous".
That's what I'd say anyway, but Sartreans out there: engage! There might be
points where you think Sartre is emphasising one thesis (the one I will be
familiar with) but *really saying something more subtle: certainly Sartre is
a great thinker worth reading carefully.
Elephant
> From: Dan Dunn <trescia@earthlink.net>
> Reply-To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 21:21:08 -0600
> To: moq_focus@moq.org
> Subject: Re: Re MF experience/not-experienced
>
>
>
> Jaap Karssenberg wrote:
>
>>> The idea that
>>> existence precedes essence fits in very well with Pirsig's metaphysics, I
>>> believe. Existence, Quality-- the same?
>>
>> Can you explain this in some more words ? - I'm not very familiar whith
>> Satre.
>> If Existence=Quality how do you see Dynamic Existence and Static Existence ?
>>
>
> Oh that's just perfect! Static Quality = Being-in-itself. Dynamic Quality =
> Being-for-itself. I really think that there is some kind of analog here that
> is
> worth exploring. "Being-in-itself is never either possible or impossible. It
> is. This is what consciousness expresses in anthropomorphic terms by saying
> that being is *de trop*-- that is , that consciousness absolutely cannot
> derive
> being from *anything*, either from another being, or from a possibility, or
> from
> a necessary law. Uncreated, without reason for being, without any connection
> with another being, being-in-itself is *de trop* for eternity." (Jean Paul
> Sartre in *Being and Nothingness*." *De trop* is impossible to translate into
> English (that's interesting!) and implies both superfluity and totality.
> Being-for-itself "is like a tiny nihilation which has its origin at the heart
> of
> Being; and this nihilation is sufficient to cause a total upheaval to *happen*
> to the In-itself. This upheaval is the world." *Being and Nothingness*.
> Close
> analogy here. But Sartre divides his universe slightly differently than
> Pirsig. Pirsig quarreled with the Greeks over which came first, form or
> substance? But the Greeks and everyone else (in the West) always saw essence
> and "preceding" existence. The "essence" of a thing might be its form (Plato)
> or its substance (Socrates) but the essential was always "underlying" the
> here-and-now reality. Sartre turns that idea upside down. Here insists that
> Nothingness exists, without any essence at all. He divides Existence into two
> halves -- Being and Nothingness. He further divides Being into
> Being-in-itself
> (Static?) and Being-for-itself (Dynamic?). So, if my analogy is correct at
> all,
> Pirsig's Quality is one half (Being) of Sartre's world. The other half--
> nothingness, must be a part of Quality if Quality is everything-- but what do
> we
> call THAT? It's a very interesting question, and I don't have an immediate
> answer.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> ------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>
> MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
>
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:30 BST