[MD] Metaphysics

[Mary]

Hi Steve,

Glad you asked.  I think I've already said this in previous posts today, but
I am disturbed by Pirsig's definition of the Intellectual level.  He seems
to equate it with abstract thinking in a letter he wrote to somebody
(Turner?) which I, admittedly, have not read in its entirety.  

What?  The Intellectual level is not the mechanistic level of achieving the
ability to engage in abstract thought.  Abstract thinking has been around
for millennia.  What distinguishes the Intellectual level for me is that is
_values_ questioning assumptions, beliefs, or whatever you wish something to
be.  In particular, it values rising above the ego to seek fundamental
truths, even if they prove the seeker wrong. Only by valuing truth above ego
can humanity hope to even notice that Quality exists.  

- Mary 

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steven Peterson
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:34 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

Hi Mary,

Mary:
> I have to join with Bo on this.  I really think Pirsig said some things he
> didn't believe himself sometimes in order to make the MoQ more palatable
to
> academics, etc.

Steve:
Wow. This is quite an accusation.

In what partcular instances do you see Pirsig as lying about what he
really thinks? How do you go about deciding when Pirsig actually means
what he says and when he does not to untangle the "true MOQ"?

I can't see that he would have anything to gain in lieing about the
MOQ. Why would he lie to get the MOQ accepted when what would be
accepted was not the "true MOQ" (that only Bo gets) but merely a
shadow of the "true MOQ"? What would be gained in getting a false MOQ
accepted?


Mary:
>In places it sounds almost like he is second-guessing
> himself, especially when talking about how he shouldn't be trying to
create
> a metaphysics at all of something so large as to be diminished by its own
> creation.  For me, words and language are poor tools to use for explaining
> DQ - and Pirsig knew it - even apologized for it.

Steve:
There is a necessary tension or irony in talking about something that
he states that by definition is undefinable as in the opening of the
Tao Te Ching: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao."  Yet
we all know what quality is, and Pirsig goes on to describe quality at
length in his books. He cautions that none of these descriptions of
Quality is to be thought of as the true essence of Quality. They are
all fingers pointing to the moon. I don't see what this issue has to
do with your accusation.

Best,
Steve
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/