Donald T Palmgren (lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu)
Sat, 5 Sep 1998 04:11:33 +0100
Hey guys n' girls... and any fish and trees or rocks or AIs that
might be listining in. ;-)
First off, of course, best wishes to Ken. Get well soon, buddy.
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Magnus Berg wrote:
> > (ME:)
> > Like I said: When Pirsig talks about society he always refers to
> > new York, the victorians, etc. But he dosn't refer to computers... or
> > trees or rocks or cells (well he does in the blood cell analogy but
> > that I
> > think really was analogy).
> >
> (Magnus:)
> Ok, I'll quote this once more.
> Pirsig writes in Lila ch. 11 (my caps)
> "... collective organizations of cells into metazoan SOCIETIES called
> plants and animals."
Yes, that was the one I had in mind. I'm not sure how literal vs.
how metaphorical that's intended, but anyway...
I certainly do agree that Pirsig does in many plces speek of
objects "trapping" value patterns. Being an artist, that was something
that stuck w/ me, because that's what good art does: trap value patterns.
Pirsig refers to Lila's doll and idols and churches, and I agree that the
idea of computers or books "trapping" IntPoVs isn't far off from that.
However (you knew there'd be a "however"), I think it's important
not to miss the evolutionary, or teleological, point that the sq schema
makes. So, if you'll permit me, Magnus, to skip to the heart of the
matter:
> > The 4 levels are *only* a pragmatic tool -- a game of "play as
> > if," and the real question is how useull is it.
> >
> This is where our greatest difference is. I don't think the four levels
> are just a tool. If they were, the moral framework based on them would
> collapse into emotivistic just-what-you-like-subjectivity.
If I'm interpriting you're view correctly, you, and some other LS
members, are proposing that all 4 "levels" were present at (or before) the
begining of time and are all inclusive, and everything in existince
contains all 4 "levels of being" to it.
Here's how i see it:
In ZMM pirsig uses a wonderful analogy of the man on the bech
sorting sand. This beach and man taken together (Heidegger's
"being-in-the-world") -- before any S-O split, is the "undifferentiated
aesthetic continuem," or "Quality" or in LILA (apparently) DQ.
The naraitor says, "you pick up a handful of sand and call that
'the world.'" Okay, BANG!, there's the S-O split. "Object consciousness"
-- this is me, all of that is not me.
You then begin sourting that sand into smaler piles -- sorting out
color, grit, size of the grains... There are countless ways you can sourt
it, and countless hierarchys you can build. Some will have greater value
than others. ome hierarchys are more logical, more pragmatic, and/or more
socially/ethically aplicable.
Pheadrus/Pirsig, w/ that razor-sharp intellectual scalple and
"laser beem" focus, has spent the years between writing ZMM and writing
LILA playing w/ those cuts and hierarchies, and he came up one system that
had the greatist value (logical, pragmatic *and* social/ethical) he could
come up w/. That is:
We should start by dividing up our handfull of sand into 4 piles.
Each pile is based on a different type or SOURCE) of value.
1) The physical laws (values) of the universe.
2) The laws (values) of nature -- "Darwinian values"
3) "The law." That is, social law -- the laws (values) of "the
Giant"
4) Intellectual values -- what is valued by intellectuals,
scientits, philosophers, achademics and egg-heads
(not to mention good motercyle mechnics!)
What's at question here is the *source* of each type of value.
That's what varies. Physical values come from "the universe." Biological
values come from "mother nature." "The law" comes from the Giant... or
Giants, as there are more than one social complexes jusat as there are
more than one eco-systems (but only one "universe" --This growth in
"desention," or variation, as we move "up" is a sign of increase in DQ,
but I'll come to that in a sec.). And intellectual values come from
intellectual communities ("schools" in the loose sense of the word -- all
the little waring camps on the intellectual battlefield fighting for the
top-dog prize of The Truth!!).
Now you can see my point about computers, and idols and churches.
They may "trap" SocPoVs but these values are the values of a society, a
Giant. To say that a rock flouting in space 10 billion years ago was a
social value...?? And books may trap IntpoVs (art can trap either Soc or
IntPoVs!) but these values have to come out of intellectual cominities --
that's why they're intellectual values.
Now that we've divided our sand into 4 piles we can then sourt the
piles into a hierachal structure. We can start by age. InOrgPoVs are as
"old as time." BioPoVs are as old as life. SocPoVs are as old as
societies (apx. 10-15,000 years give or take -- depending on where you
draw the line between group structuring by Darwinian values [dog pack
stuff] and structuring by social values ["civilized" social class
systems]). And IntPoVs are no more than 3,000 years old, give or take
(again depending on where you draw the line... and if we've got a good
definition of IntPoVs w/ SOTAQI or SO*Logic*AQI).
Now when we arrange that hierarchy... WOW! Suddenly a pattern
forms. W/ time... these things are becomming more dynamic!!!
Like I said above, they increse in source: One "universe" (or if
you're a nit-picker you might find 3 or 4 sub divisions: the quantum
world, the near-light-speed world, the eclips horizen of a black hole
world, etc.); hundreds of distinct eco-systems (w/ many sub-divisions);
maybe a few thousand full-fleged societies, Giants, have born, matured
and died here on earth (w/ many, many sub-divisins w/in each along class
lines, religion, vocation, etc.); and (already!) many ideas about what is
of intelectual value (and a God-awful # of sub-sub-sub-specilties).
The rate of change increases: InOrg = like never. (I don't think
new, artifical elements like "Calafornium" -- or even steel and plastic --
count as "new InOrgpoVs." They're still following the the laws/values of
the universe -- *those* haven't changed.) Bio = very slowly, or very
rarely (like when our hypothetical commet zaps earth and some whole new
eco system(s) develops). Soc = frequently. From decade to decade we see
changes in fashion, music, art, etc. And IntPoVs change so frequently
it's nutty. (In ZMM it's mentioned that young Pheadrus formed a law: The
slife-span of any scientific theory is *inversly* proportional to the
amount of scientific activity.)
What else can we see in this hierarchy? ... Ah-ha (he exclaims as
if he just realized this and hadn't seen it when he first read LILA years
ago ;-) ), the *degree of tolerance* also increases as we move "up" the
hierarchy. Matter/energy/time/space have almost no freedom w/in their
laws/values. (I'm sure somebody's going to bring up quantum uncertnanty,so
I'll say now that that's not much freedom. *Individually* quanta can do
almost anything, but inorder for that unpredictability to have an impact
on the "macro" world [moleculs on up] there'd have to a lot of them doing
the same thing and the odds drop awy *very* quickly. So this is literaly
very *little* variation/freedom [pun intended].) Biological
evolution/behavier has a good bit more freedonm -- but if you go too far
against the biological values of your eco-system you're gon'na get killed.
Societies (Giants) are far more lenient. You can break away in degrees --
collect various "stigmas" (Goffman) in various severity. Punishments can
be a mild social admonishment, "Don't do that," getting sent to the
Principal's office, the unemployment line, prison, or the mad house.
Intellectual values are so un-enforced that New Age junk is not only
tollerated, but is more populer than "real" science/philosophy. It's not
'anything goes' -- but it's close.
I could go on, but you can see how the hierachy is sourting itself
(practically) from static on up towards dynamic. From order to chaos. From
stability to change. From rigidity to flexability. So it's evolving
"towards DQ."
So now we've taken our handful of sand -- "the world" -- and used
our knife to cut it into 4 piles and then sourted them into a "natural"
hierarchy. We then go on (or at least we may or would) to test these 3
cuts and this hierachal structure against experience in order to see how
practical, logical, and ethical it proves to be. The answer is probably
"very" since Pirsig has yet to do any better than this, and he's put more
effort into it than the LS combined (but we're catching-up fast because
we're more dyanamic than he could possibly be).
But are these 4 piles some sort of ontallogically absolute TRUTH,
as I interpret Magnus as saying? No. Why not? Because they all come
about through our sourting... AFTER we've picked up a handfull of sand and
called it "the World".... AFTER the knowing subject ("Self") has stood
itself over aginst the knowing object ("World")... And before and beyond
all of this sorting is the man on the beach, together as one unit -- man
*in* the ladscape, being-in-the-world... undiferentiated, pre-intellectual
Quality.
In the world of the Buddha, as Pirsig wrote and Anthony posted,
the 4 static levels of sq have no purpose... have no value... They don't
exist, get it!? But the Buddha point of view isn't very helpfull in (I
think he called it) the everyday world -- the "real" world (note the
irony). The 4 levels, of so-called "sq" are a pragmatic tool.
Remember: if the ultimate is beyond words/thoughts and accessable
only by direct, pre-verbel experence then you have a mysticism.
If the ultimate is graspable by words/thoughts and can be
explained/communicated to someone, then you have a metaphysics.
Pirsig (a lot like Kant) is trying to bounce back and forth
between both worlds... or find some kind of bridge between them.
Kant (for those non-philosolologist) set up a dichotmy of worlds:
The world of our experince -- practical, rational, graspable. And the
"real" world -- a trancendental unity he calls the "Moral Self," which is
totaly beyond world and thought. After all, to have a thought is for a
subject (a knower) to seperate itself out from an object (a known). (If
only Kant had the opertunity to study Eastern mysticism...) Kant says we
can't know the Moral Self, but it is rational to have faith in iy's
existence, becuse such belief clears up the big philosophical platapus of
his day -- Hume's idea that "Nature" or "Nature's Laws" are created out of
our imagination vs. Lock's insistance of the (unprovable) reality
"out-there." (See ZMM chapter 11 for a real good summery of this moment
in philosophy!)
So Kant said 'Unltimate reality can not be known or understood,
only believed in.' If he studied Eastern thought rather than Christian
theology, he might have said "only be experienced" insted of "believed
in" because the East emphisizes direct experience and Mideval Christianity
empisized faith. Anyway, then he left it at that.
But Fichte Schelling and Hegel all said: 'No way! Nothing which
cannot be thought can be said, and nothing which cannot be said can be
thought, and how can anything that can't be either thought of or spoken of
be said to exist and be taken seriously? Come on, man!?'
And so they set about attempting to put the unspeakable into
words, and the unthinkable into concepts.
Neadless to say they got way, way the blazes up there in the high
countrey of the mind and write in a way so alien that it's virtually
indeciferable. Trying to follow them up there is like trying to climb
Everist. Those who want their "factoids" simple enough to fit on a
postcard need not apply. (I want to say here that i'm not bragging! I've
read a little of Kant and hardly any Fichte or Schelling... Hegel I've
read but don't claim to totaly understand. My Hegel professor said he had
to work w/ hegel for 10 years before he "got it." I am nowhere near
"getting it.")
Anyway, this movement (called 'German Idealsim' but not implying
that "Nature or Nature's laws are all in your head") culminated in Hegel
who decided that getting at the unpeakable ment opening up a new order of
thought. This new level of thought is "Speculative Philosophy" (or "1st
Philosphy" in Aristotle's sense).
After Hegel comes Schopenhour who said the Hindu *Upnishads* were
the greatest achievment of human thought; Nietzsche, who wanted to trash
everything since Socrates; and Hiedegger, who wanted to replace everything
Nietzsche trashed w/ something a kin to Taoism (Hiedegger even translated
Latzu into German). All of these post-Hegel thinkers tended to fall back
towards Kant's "mysticism" (unknowable/unthinkable). Hegel's ideas became
sociology, social psychology and Marxism. Heidegger's ideas became
Existintialism and dead-ended there. And then, here comes R.M.
Pirsig, who, w/ ZMM, writes the best "Philosophy" book I've ever read.
What to make of him? ...
Anyway, you see, Easter religion doesn't philosophize "DQ" -- it
doesnt try to grasp it in words and concepts. It experiences it. That's
what i mean about IntPoVs leading awy from DQ... or do they? Can DQ be
grasped intellectually?
Sorry, I got philosologically off-track. The point is: Pirsig
gives us a split world: the world of the Buddha (pure DQ) and the world of
"everyday experience" (sq divided into 4 levels in a hierarchy). The 4
levels work well as tool *for us* -- intellectually, ethically... -- but
they only exist for us / in our discource. Something we talk about.
Ghosts. Along w/ Newton's laws, Plato's Forms, the time of the dinosuars,
and so on. In the Buddha-world, the 4 levels are not needed. (Actally,
they're impossible.) They are a truth. Maybe the highest value truth yet.
But they are not The Good.
Well, I've got this far, killed the afternoon, and i still haven't
gotten to where I'm trying to get to. Magnus, you're Lybrary of Alexandria
question holds *great* intrset for me. Next time I post, I'm going to try
and show you how you can turn that into an Open Question of tremendous
philosophical value -- one hell of path through the high country.
Bodvar, you're "at the end of your tether," and I'm just getting
going. :) Unfortionatly, i might only have time to write on Fiday
afternoons, so I'll just see you when i see you.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:45 CEST