Ant McWatt (ant11@liverpool.ac.uk)
Fri, 27 Feb 1998 05:02:48 +0100
Dear Diana,
Thanks again for your positive note recently. I`ve got
the following comments on what has been written on the
Squad in the last week or so, starting with the latest:
25th Feb. Donald T Palmgren wrote:
> Could be. Personally I see this -ism partisianship as a
> result of the Church of Reason -- the school system we
> are all churned through as if it were some great sausage
> machine -- *programming* us to see a question as an
> unfinished answer, a blank to be filled in, either
> correctly or incorrectly.
That`s one of the (subsidary) points of the classroom
scenes in ZMM. The usual school system that grades and
fills its students with "knowledge" is in danger of
destroying the originality and creativity of each one of
its pupils. As Pirsig says (in ZMM) to regurgitate the
"program" correctly that has been fed by the Church of
Reason, is the way to get an A. To to be original within
the Church is to risk a grade anywhere between A and F.
> I'm frequently told by people who insist that Good is
> more real than Truth that what I say is false. (I fear
> they miss the irony.)
Very good point. You should reply "If you equate the Good
with immediate experience (as Pirsig does) then to say that
the `Good is more real than Truth is false` is false".
(Though, of course, what they say could be be true if you
don`t equate the Good with immediate experience - but let
them work that one for themselves).
> Perhaps idealistically I hoped that Pirsig supporters
> would be raving individualist and radically iconoclastic
Mr Pirsig sets some pace in this regard...
> -- like the man himself, but I sense a desire to found a
> church in his wake (and the man not yet dead). Oh well.
Church of Reason mk.2, here we go!!!
> (Has anyone beside me thought that instead of
> "Principles" maybe we should have "pointers" or
> "guidelines" or "prefatory thoughts" or something?)
Yes, I see your point here, Donny. The word "Principles"
seems too strong and too "set in stone". I have asked
Pirsig in the past whether or not the four static value
patterns were just a practical device and NOT saying
something ultimately true about Dynamic Quality. He
answered yes i.e. the static patterns are just one way of
dividing Dynamic Quality (SOM is another...).
For me personally, the principles as they stand do not
emphasise the mystic aspect of the MOQ enough and that they
would be better termed as a guidelines. As Bodvar has
previously said on the LS:
"...reality keeps changing because our concepts of reality
- including space and time - is subject to dynamic change.
If anyone says that this makes the MOQ conceptual too and
prone to change I don't think Pirsig would object..."
Pirsig has emphasised to me, time and again, that concepts
should be kept out of Dynamic Quality. What Keith says in
the second-to-last paragraph of his 21st February e-mail is
very important: Dynamic Quality is the "...Good in the
mystic sense - one that goes beyond our conceptual
categories". Again, I quote what Pirsig said to me in his
letter of Octber 6th:
> ...It`s important to keep all `concepts` out of Dynamic
> Quality. Concepts are always static. Once they get
> into Dynamic Quality they`ll overrun it and try to
> present it as some kind of a concept itself...
> ...If you mistakenly call one of these concepts `ultimate
> reality`, then ultimate reality becomes ephemeral too.
> Thus classical scientific reality keeps changing all the
> time as scientists keep discovering new conceptual
> explanations."
i.e The Principles are concepts i.e STATIC intellectual
patterns and, according to the MOQ, morally inferior to
Dynamic Quality. As Diana likes quoting "All the
Buddha can say is `See for yourself`". Moreover, I`ll
give you a favourite quote of mine from Tseng Lao-weng (an
old Taoist sage) who uses the following analogy
to highlight the differences between mystic wisdom and
philosophical knowledge:
"Wisdom is almost as satisfying as good porridge, whereas
knowledge has less body to it than tepid water poured over
old tea leaves."
In thinking about new members who have not grasped (an
ironic phrase, I admit) the importance of keeping Dynamic
Quality undefined in the MOQ, I would suggest it would be a
good idea to expand on principle/guideline number one and
re-write it as:
"It is important to note that the following
principles/guidelines are not stating anything ultimately
true about Quality which is beyond definition. The
principles/guidelines of/to the MOQ are stated solely for
pragmatic purposes and are liable to change at any time."
(I am writing principles/guidelines though only one of
these would be chosen. Also the line "Quality is known to
us as awareness" sounds too SOM (knower and known) and
should be re-written as "Quality is awareness from which
all static patterns such as intellect, social, biological
and inorganic are derived" after the above
principle/guideline. Sorry I didn`t spot that one earlier,
Diana).
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998 19:15:45 +0000 Bodvar Skutvik
wrote:
> First to the pronunciation of LILA. I asked Pirsig about
> it shortly after publication and he said it was like
> "lilac" and that..." it was the unsubtlety of the lilac
> odour and the hardiness of the bush that helped suggest
> her name to me". Does this sound like your phonetic
> "lie-luh" ?
> Somewhere I have read that he did not know about the lila
> of Hindu mythology, but it's quite a coincidence when one
> reads the passage you cite.
In Hindu, "lila" means "the sport or game of life"; it
seems hell of a coincidence that Pirsig didn`t know about
this beforehand.
> The arguments you bring contra SOM and pro MOQ are just
> right on and shows that you have a firm grasp of the
> problem. I can only affirm what you write about most
> people being oblivious to the fundamental weakness that
> (fails to) underpin the Subject/Object universe. They
> simply don't see any problem or if they do, believe it to
> be some built-in riddle to thwart the human "hubris".
Bodvar has previously explained to me why the
subject/object universe does not work. I liked his
explanation so much I used it for my MOQ presentation on
the 12th. I quote the relevant section for everyone
else on LS:
"2. So why introduce a new metaphysics?
This is probably explained best by my Norwegian friend
Bodvar and the quality/quantity paradox in
subjective-objective thinking:
"In the objective world there are no qualities, only
quantities: sight-colours are various wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum; sound-music are air pressure
waves; smell-odours are molecular configurations, as is
taste and touches are pressure sensation. No where out
there is quality (or values) to be found. The impacts on
our sense organs are transmitted into electrochemical
impulses travelling to the brain where it is translated
back into our subjective perception. There is NO direct
connection between the two realms ...if you start with the
subjective/objective metaphysics (or the mind/matter idea
if that sounds less "metaphysical")... subjectiveness is
subjectiveness from here to eternity as is objectiveness;
nowhere does the two overlap."
(e-mail from Bodvar Skutvik to Anthony McWatt, September
30th, 1997)
As can be seen from the diagram on SOM, quality is on one
side of a metaphysical chasm and quantity is on the other.
Quantity is perceived as inhering in substance, qualities
are perceived as being non-substances. They are mutually
exclusive and should therefore not be able to have an
effect on each other. However, the fact that your mind can
decide to move your little finger (a physical object) and a
few pints of beer (a physical substance) can alter your
mind totally dispels this idea. There is a serious
metaphysical problem here."
I think the above should make it very clear to anyone
why SOM doesn`t work.
However, I do have to challenge one of Bodvar`s bombastic
assertions (to Lawrie) of the 24th February while I`m going
through all the recent LS discussions this evening:
> A conditional "yes", but allow me a little lecturing. I
> have the sinking feeling that you regard the Intellect of
> MOQ as identical to the Mind of SOM.
Actually, Pirsig does as well! However, having said that,
he has said to me that the word "Mind" is best avoided as
it is an ambiguous term. This is because Eastern mystics
(and I think Bodvar as well) regard Mind as another term
for Dynamic Quality (i.e. all existence is mind) while
Western SOM philosophers regard it as just an intellectual
(and maybe social if they believe society exists) term.
Well, nothing else on the LS over the last week or so seems
too controversial so I`ll call that an evening.
Speak to you soon.
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 - 16:42:48 CEST