From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 28 2005 - 21:06:42 BST
Mark, Sam and all Focusers:
On May 17, Sam Norton asked:
Is DQ just on the top, ie you have to ascend up the levels to get to
the DQ (and therefore, presumably, become like the LILA character
Phaedrus)?
dmb says:
In terms of a human life, I think that's a good way to think about it, as a
spiritual and/or developmental goal. Its like the whole static thing has to
unfold and mature before it can be transcended. There is the idea of the
infant as experiencing a kind of pre-static DQ. There are no patterns, or
very few, to be transcended. The static world is still forming and is not
yet ripe for such things. But as we mature and static patterns are built up,
they shape and define our world. And I think that transcending this static
forms does not mean their rejection, destruction or abandonment. Its more
like remembering what you once knew. And I wouldn't be too fussy about
mastering any particular forms nor would I like to suggest that
enlightenment is only available to an elite group of world-class talents.
Its just that growth depends on health. There are, I suppose, certain basic
requirements in the developmental process. Even in those cases where such
realization come suddenly, there was something about that life that had
ripened.
Sam continued:
Or is DQ the product of the interaction of the various levels (along
the lines of Mark Maxwell's 'sweet spot' imagery) - and therefore the
pursuit of DQ involves the enhancement of all the levels in different
and mutually reinforcing ways? (and therefore we aren't obliged to
become like the LILA character Phaedrus)
dmb says:
I don't think we can say DQ is a product of anything. I think its more a
matter of making the static world invisible or transparent. Artist,
athletes, motorcycles mechanics, house painters and just about everyone else
knows about that zone we get it. When we get a feel for the work it becomes
so engaging that all effort and struggle disappears. When we're totally into
it, we disappear. You that that zone? That's what I mean by transparency.
Its not that the paint brush or wrench is indistinguisable from your hand or
your intentions, its just that noticing those distinctions will only get in
the way and slow you down. I've done some house painting and there were
times I was not really there. Once in a while that even happens while I'm
writing posts here. Personally, the phrase 'Sweet spot' conjures up images
of tennis rackets and golf clubs, of wacking things with sticks, of country
clubs and competitive sports. So that phrase never quite worked for me. I'm
thinking about a mode of consciousness wherein all the various elements
involved are working together as if they were parts of a whole. I think this
is at least one of the ideas in Pirsig's imagery. Obviously, motorcycles and
sailboats are such unified strutures. And so are we.
Sam said to msh:
....I don't think it's tenable to say that the MoQ doesn't 'enthrone'
Socrates as a martyr, and therefore hold him up as someone to be
emulated, in contrast to the presentation of him in ZMM, where he
was clearly NOT to be emulated.
msh replied with his explication of this seeming idolization:
"The battle for science (or Socratic philosophy) to free itself from
the restrictions of social-dominated thought was a moral battle
because social domination was threatening intellectual survival.
What the MOQ says is, OK, the threat is past, so now let's catch
our breath and apply unfettered intellect to the split between
society and science. When we do, we see that not everything about
social restrictions is negative, and the positive elements should be
incorporated into our newly-freed intellectual understanding of the
world."
dmb says:
Right. The intellect's political struggle for independence is a moral one,
but it also created some problems. One is a kind of disregard for social
level values and the other is the mistaken notion that intellect was born
without parents. These are the two big mistakes that the MOQ seeks to
address. The Phaedrus of LILA depicts this alienation of intellect from
society and Richard Rigel represents the social level types who are so angry
and upset about the disregard and disrespect they sense from intellectuals.
And this is why Pirsig explains the problem with 20th century intellectuals
taking sides with biology., putting the social level in the crossfire. And
the bit about being born without parents is addressed too. This is where the
"linguaistic turn" fits into the picture. This is essentially the
recognition that langauge, which has evolved as a social level sturucture
for tens of thousands of years, is what provides us with the capactity for
intellect and shapes our intellect to a very great extent. That's why French
culture has to exist before Descartes can think and therefore be sure of his
existence. This is where the notion that all our ideas are suspended in
language, that all our understandings are derived from our cultural context.
All this and more is Pirsig pointing out that the intellectual most
certainly does have parents. There is even a passage where he points out
that enlightenment science is very good at including the biological senses
in mediating our knowledge, but was totally lacking when it came to
mediation through the social level. In the quest for independence from the
social level, the intellect became alienated and disassociated. Instead of
growing up and making a home of her own, this child tried to kill her
parents or deny their existence. But that's only because the parents were
trying to kill her or prevent her from growing up. And of course we are
talking about a spiritual and psychological split within ourselves and
within our culture. This is the crisis behind those hurricanes and earth
quakes. Its making people crazy, you know? It has people picking sides. Its
what keeps people from being well-integrated machine, it causes war and
social upheavel. Its a huge rift.
msh continued:
So intellectual value (truth) is recognized in some social level
patterns. But if you're not convinced by this, here's something else
to consider: Socrates (Plato) insists that truth stands alone, apart
from social considerations; and yet, in LILA, Dusenberry's method of
determining anthropological truth, by emersing himself in the culture
he's studying rather than maintaining a SOM-Science objectivity, is
found by Phaedrus to be highly valuable. So, Dusenberry's MOQ-
Science method, which contradicts Socrates, is embraced by the
Metaphysics of Quality! QEFnD.
dmb says:
Right, and beside the multi-pronged assertion that intellect does indeed
have parents, parents that deserve some respect, there is a "patterns of
culture" theme running throughout the book, even tracing some of the
enlightenment's central ideas to social values that had been absorbed from
Indian culture. Overall, one gets the idea that language and culture furnish
all of the pre-requisites for intellect. Personally, I think of the richness
and complexity of the mythological world, multiply that by several factors
fiquring that language and power structures and such are equally rich and
complex and then conclude that the social level is a deep, deep well that
intellect has only begun to explore. Or, if you prefer, intellect is like an
inch-deep layer of fresh water on top of an ocean. And so it is with us. It
seems to me that most of what we are is very ancient compared to intellect
and yet we go around as if intellect is running the show all by itself. I
can't quite put my finger on it, but it seems there is a connection between
this isolated subjective ego of individuals and the whole intellectual level
as an alienated orphan. Two sides of the same coin. A world view that splits
the self from itself. Something like that. I mean, it seems like there is a
single sickness with lots of various symptoms. And maybe the very idea of
the individual, or at least a CERTAIN idea of the individual, is part of
that sickness. Not that individuals are given too much worth, exactly. Too
much weight and emphasis is given so that the roots and connections are
ignored so that the importance placed upon individuality ends up cutting
people off from each other and from the world. Individuals then become
strangers, even to themselves.
Sorry. I'm trying to describe a fracture that runs through individuals and
through the culture. I see it as one and the same line, but its hard to get
the idea across clearly.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/
MF Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 29 2005 - 13:21:43 BST