Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Thu, 15 Jan 1998 21:22:23 +0100
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998 20:50:55 +0000 Bodvar Skutvik
<skutvik@online.no> wrote:
> Monday, 12 Jan 1998 Diana McPartlin wrote:
>
> > ....If Quality is the goal of existence it implies that Quality is something
> > other than existence and that existence is not Quality. Is that what you
> > intend?
> snip
>
> Hello Anthony McWatt are you listening in?
Yes, I am Bodvar! I`m just trying to keep-up with the
amount of mail which I have received from the LS since
November.
I remember the quote you are referring to about the
question of a "goal" for existence and Pirsig`s comment on
this. I`ll send you this the next time I`m in the
University (probably this time next Thursday).
Just a couple of points on the material I`ve read since
December:
THE TOP QUALITY LEVEL
I am unhappy with the replacement of "intellect" with
"rationality".
Firstly, "rationalism" is the philsophical theory of "a
priori" ideas, that truth and knowledge are attainable
primarily through reason rather than through experience.
Unfortunately, I think its usuage within the MOQ could
become confusing especially as the MOQ is an EMPIRICAL
theory opposed to RATIONALITY. Maybe the term "reasoning"
could be put in its place but even with this term there are
problems.
One of the main ideas of ZMM (which was carried through
to LILA) is that the dominance of rationality over the
imaginative and artistic fields in Western thinking has
fragmented the Human intellect.
Pirsig basically says we have a two-tier system where
rationality (or reasoning) is seen above rhetoric, art etc.
As everyone knows this goes back to Plato and his example
of the chariteer and the two wild horses that need
reigning in. One of the aims of Pirsig`s work is to
correct Plato`s error and put the arts on an equal footing
with the sciences again. I therefore feel that the term
"rationality" (especially with the use of the term
representing a philosophical theory antagonistic towards
the arts) should not be used within the MOQ.
Moreover, memory and imagination do not fit in with
rationality (or reasoning); the term "intellect"
does cover these aspects and is another reason I feel
that it should not be replaced by the term
"rationality" within the MOQ.
THE FIRST THREE PRINCIPLES OF THE MOQ
To say "Quality is thge ethical principle of the
good" is a tautology as "Quality" is a synonym of
"good". You could say "Quality is reality" as
Diana has done but this leaves the question of
"reality" for whom (or what)? This is why I used the
Pirsig`s quote that Quality is "the first slice of
undivided experience" by trying to get away from a
tautological definition and saying something
further about Quality i.e. that it is immediate undivided
experience BEFORE a formal intellectual definition which
would be immoral according to the MOQ.
Principle 10 of Platt`s "Principles" is incorrect. If only
living beings could respond to Dynamic Quality the
evolutionary process of quantum forces/ sub-atomic
particles would not have proceeded any further. What you
can say about Dynamic Quality, however, is that it is only
sentinent beings such as humans who can grasp some
understanding of it through meditation, vision quests etc.
Principle 13 of Platt`s is good. The last two lines from
"And they will have to concede..." is a nice nugget of
wisdom.
Finally, thanks for the "Christmas Card" Bodvar. Maybe,
you might have a new replacement term for "intellect"
for me next Thursday?
Best Wishes,
Anthony.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:38 CEST