[MD] The Greeks?

[Mary]

Hi Bo and everyone,

> Hi Mary.
> 
> 9 June.
> 
> You have obviously succeeded in deciphering Matt's and say:
> 
> > And herein lies the rub.  The crux of my question goes right to the
> > heart of the differences between the three groups I've described.
> > Depending on where you are in your journey, you either will or will
> > not find value in seeing the nature of SOM as an insidious destroyer
> > of equanimity.  If you find personal meaning in the MoQ, the purpose
> > of the Intellectual Level looms large for this reason.  It is perhaps
> > the central concept you have attachment for.  You think that everyone
> > should feel the enormity of Pirsig's insights that you see, and are
> > offended that they do not.  But this is a mistake.  To rail against
> > others who have not is unfair.  Would I be understanding of that
> which
> > I had not experienced?  If not, why should I expect that of others?
> > The MoQ can be understood on many levels, and any of them are better
> > than none.
> 
> You started this post with placing people in camps (in my words) 1)
> The ones who have found a solution of problems with the MOQ.  2)
> The philosophologists and 3) The Hagglers. The two latter are plain,
> but the first camp must be expanded with sub-camps. This is shown in
> your comment on the intellectual level as the fulcrum, a camp is
> needed for those who see the enormity of the MOQ but think that it is
> squandered with the bland 4th. level.  Pirsig relegates the role to all
> levels as that of "controlling" its parent, but with intellect this is
> abolished. That is when he was asked about it, else in LILA intellect's
> true role - as a "control" of social value - keeps popping up and it is
> always in its science & knowledge - i.e. SOM's - role . However, the
> "funamentalist camp" explains this away by  SOM being just one
> intellectual pattern and by this token the 4th. level becomes the
> mental
> compartment which we know as "mind" and the SOM that the MOQ
> were meant to be a relief from is back in office.
> 
> Mary to Matt:
> > And so you have revealed yourself to lie within the second camp,
> > Pirsig as academically interesting.  No doubt you will satisfy some
> > and infuriate others, but as Pirsig said, "It's all Good", and I, for
> > one, would not wish upon you the burdens necessary to fall within the
> > first camp.
> 
> Wise words. Matt as a philosophologist and thus in camp with DMB is
> plain, that they have twittered over Rorty for a decade merely proves
> the point..
> 
> Keep up your good work.
> 
[Mary Replies] 
When I am talking to anyone it has been demonstrated to me many times over
the years that there is really only one legitimate goal to conversation - to
achieve understanding.  It is always a mistake on my part to believe I
understand the other person too soon.  Every time I've done so I'm sooner or
later caught out as the fool.

With that in mind, if you ask yourself why some people view the Intellectual
Level as SOM while others just as clearly view it as thinking itself, a few
reasons can spring to mind.  All of them had their origin in Pirsig's own
writings.  That he chose to characterize the levels as analogous to the tree
of biological evolution is a handy device, it works well, but unfortunately
can lead to multiple interpretations.  I think the controversy over the
Intellectual Level could as easily be waged over any other level too if you
were to scratch your surface understanding of the person with whom you
disagreed.  It's always a matter of asking the right questions.

Pirsig didn't make this easy for us.  Why should he, when it was so hard for
he himself?  To serve up a ready-made metaphysics on a platter would have
sunk it like a stone in a deep lake.  For his metaphysics to thrive, he had
few choices.  Without the credentials to bring academic legitimacy to bear,
a learned dissertation would have found no audience, and not falling within
the realm of religious revelation, he could hardly take the evangelical
route.  What remained was story-telling.  The Chautauqua he tellingly
laments the demise of in his first book.  

For any story to be compelling, it must have drama and psychological
tension, but how do you build suspense, drama, and tension into a
metaphysics?  Read any other philosopher of the last few hundred years and
you will see just how hard this is.  Who has not fallen asleep reading
James, for instance?  And it's not just a matter of the literary style of
eras past that stand in the way.  No other philosopher brings the anguish
and torment, the self-doubt and bodice-ripping agony of their personal quest
to the page in anything approaching the way Pirsig does.  

This in itself is educational, for in it we see the inner workings of his
thought process.  He guides us on a journey down the path he took to arrive
at his conclusions.  This too differs greatly from other philosophers, many
of whom treat their thought processes as a trade secret.  For to admit doubt
and pose to the reader the very questions they had to have posed to
themselves at intermediate points is to reveal the very arguments that will
one day be used against them.  

For Pirsig to say that the Intellectual Level is thinking itself when this
seems to surely fly in the face of all he has said before must mean
something, and I find it telling that he views his ideas as a beginning
point of inquiry and not an end.

Best,
Mary