Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@email.dk)
Sun, 7 Sep 1997 05:03:34 +0100
Hi all
I am forwarding a mail I recently wrote to Bodvar Skutvik on his essay
*The
Quality Event*, upon which Bodvar directed me to the lila squad (thanks
Bodvar). This is a sort of introductory mail, - and maybe others has
some
thoughts on these issues.
------------------------------------
Dear Bodvar Skutvik
I am in the midst of reading your essay on Pirsig and the Metaphysics of
Quality. I just want to let you know of another kindred spirit (me :-),
and
tell you that I share your feelings upon reading Pirsigs books, though I
read them a mere 10 (ZEN) and 4 (LILA) years ago. I am in fact doing
some
philosophy of my own, mainly inspired by Pirsig and Gregory Bateson and
an
american 19.th century philosopher named Charles Sanders Peirce. I have
worked on this for ten years now, fulltime in the last four, and I am in
the
process of putting most of it out on the net, on a website I have named
PhiloSophia. There is nothing there yet, but if you are interested I can
let
you know when there is something to look at.
I agree on most of the things in your essay which I recognize (this is a
rare occurrence! ;-), and I am intrigued by some which are new to me.
Some
comments follow:
I mostly agree on your view of the fate of philosophy in this century,
you
write:
"After Kant Western philosophy went into hibernation, it split into
German
spiritual science (so-called pure speculation) and English logical
analyses,
both equally uninspiring and academical with no general appeal. "
Though I think Peirce may be an exception. He was an enourmously
productive
philosopher, but his work has been mainly ignored until recent years.
You
may find material on him on http://www.door.net/arisbe, a new place
connected to a philosophical email-discussion-list which I am attending.
Peirce has been called an 'objective idealist' and he fuses idealism and
realism. Whether he actually saw the metaphysical issues with the same
clarity as Pirsig, I am not sure, but he did work in the same direction
in a
most capeable way. I believe he contributes to answering some of the
questions which we are faced with if we wish to move further along the
path
of Pirsig. I have much to learn on Peirces work though. Pirsig does not
mention Peirce, but I believe he cites William James who was a close
friend
and benefactor of Peirce (though Peirce saw him as messing up his
ideas).
By the way I think that Maturana and Varela do fall into the idealistic
trap, at least in some of their work, - and most of their followers seem
to
follow this too.
You write:
"I do not know what the taboo of the Subject/Object Metaphysics consists
of,
except it being so fundamental that most people know no other way of
perceiving things."
I think one of the main elements is our reliance on reason, our modern
science is shaped on the subject/object metaphysics, and when we shake
the
foundation the entire backbone is shaking. No one likes that kind of
insecurity (as you describe it so well - I have likened it to rebuilding
the
raft you are sailing on, on open sea) , and few realize the necessity.
Another element, concerning religious (and new age) people, is that
Pirsig
does away with the transcendent soul and hence with eternal life as it
is
perceived in most religions, including reincarnation etc.
You write:
"The undefinable Quality P. of ZMM spoke of can be said to be a Dynamic
Value "ocean" in which a hierarchy of Static Value Patterns have
crystallized. This opens for a complete revaluation of - well -
everything!"
I like this! It comes very close to Peirces metaphysics - he wrote
somewhere
of mind slowly crystallizing, and mind you, Peirce takes mind as
objective.
Yet there is another path from Peirce closer to Pirsig which I have been
working on, based on Peirces three modes of being, Possibility,
Actuality
and Necessity. This I cannot fit in here, but it will be on my website.
You write:
"The patterns are symbiotically interdependent, but - and this is
important
- their values are not identical. There is an inherent struggle between
them. Life is to defy (inorganic) Death. Society subdues Biology's
greed,
and Intellect resists social tyranny. What is good for one level is bad
for
the one above or below, and consequently we have a problem of evil."
This is intriguing - is it straight from Pirsig? I will have to ponder
more
on this in connection with the idea of hierarchy and 'the good' - arete.
You write:
"In the MOQ all levels may be said to possess an immune system that
operates
principally like the biological one. Social "foreign matter" - criminals
-
are taken care of by the agents of law and treated accordingly. Also the
Intellectual level has its means of keeping the culture clean, foreign
ideas
are attacked as effectively as a biological virus, but the "blindness"
is
evident too. A good idea that may improve upon the culture is rejected
as
violently by the establishment as bad ones (re. the
"philosophologists"). As
an afterthought. This implies that the Inorganic level must have its
means
of keeping internal order. As matter also is a moral order it is highly
probable, yes inevitable."
I have a fairly clear explanation of what and why this is, using
Peirce's
evolutionary metaphysics. In short, Potency or Possibility is the
primary
being, and any actualization (or realization) of something possible is a
break, a choice if you will, which not only gives actuality but looses
the
possibility it arose from as well. Actualization is a transformation of
the
possible, and since the possible is always larger, less bounded, than
the
actual arising, some possibility is lost. You have given examples of
this
evolutionary rule in your essay; an ecological example is the fact that
life
cannot arise where life is already present, life precludes the becoming
of
new life. And the 'internal order' on the inorganic level is most
clearly
explicated by quantum mechanics, and the 'collapse' involved. I haven't
thought of this in your immune system metaphor, though.
Your explication of how and why influence between levels cannot jump
across
levels reminds of something on intransitivity in hierarchy theory, it
may be
novel and I will follow up on it.
Upon reading your essay my debt to Pirsig reenters my mind, and I thank
you
for yet again focusing my attention to the enourmous breakthrough that
Pirsig has provided - yes I completely agree with you on your assesment
of
Pirsig as a philosopher.
I will read Alan W. Watts "The Way of Zen" and F.S.C. Northrop "The
Meeting
of East and West" when I get the time.
Kind regards og venlig hilsen fra
Hugo Fjelsted Alroe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST