[MD] Experience, essentialism, physicalism

[Ant McWatt]

Matt,

I’ll leave Dennett and Northrop’s concepts by intuition and postulation for 
the moment while I assimilate the substantial posts about the latter that 
you and David Buchanan have recently sent in and the brief – if helpful - 
essay on Northrop by Professor Kenneth K. Inada that Dave found on the 
internet at www.thomehfang.com/suncrates/6Inada1.htm

In the meantime, here are some comments about the last section of your April 
6th post.

Matt K stated April 6th:

“As an example, which tends to contradict [Northrop’s assertion that] ‘as 
cultivated by the Orient, the indeterminate aesthetic continuous component 
in man’s nature and in the nature of all things has demonstrated itself to 
be a factor which pacifies men, giving them a compassionate fellow-feeling 
not merely for other men but for all nature’s creatures, and serving to keep 
them more at peace with each other,’ I would point out the work of Brian 
Victoria in his books _Zen at War_ and _Zen War Stories_.  I haven't read 
them, I only saw them pass through where I work.”

Yes, I’ve also heard similar accounts about the behaviour of the Japanese 
during the time leading up to the Second World War in relation to Taoism and 
Buddhism.  However, the cause of this low quality behaviour was at least 
partly a result of the negative intrusions of those “barbarians from the 
West” in the 19th and 20th centuries.  As Northrop (1947, p.300-01) 
explains, the behaviour of the Japanese between the 1890s and 1940s, was 
largely due to the predominance of a type of Shintoism which was modelled on 
Western nationalism rather than any fault per se in Buddhist (or Taoist) 
philosophy:

“Buddhism, for example, exists today in a remarkably pure form in Japan. It 
is only since the 1860’s that it has been pushed into the background by the 
purely tribal Shintoism, because this was the easiest way for the Japanese 
to develop the nationalistic sentiments which the inroads of Western 
nationalism necessitated, without a break from their past.”

This is supported by Ninian Smart (“World Religions”, 1989, p.452) who notes 
that Japanese nationalism and the resultant military power which developed 
was caused by unwanted interference by Western countries starting in 1853 
with a fleet of American ships sailing into Tokyo Bay and an unequal trade 
treaty imposed in 1858.  In addition, between 1867 and 1945 Shintoism and 
Buddhism were artificially separated in Japan.  In consequence, Shintoism 
was installed as the state religion while the influence of Buddhism was 
considerably weakened as it lost its state patronage, membership, temples 
and the control of other institutions.

Matt K continued April 6th:

“My point is that of Loori: ‘Buddhism is not immune to the kind of 
distortions that have been used throughout human history.’  For Buddhism the 
same as Christianity.  Buddhists preach benevolence, real people fall short. 
  Christianity preaches love, real people fall short.”

Yes, you’re making a similar point to Northrop (in “The Logic of the 
Sciences & Humanities”) in that moral theories and political ideologies 
often fall short of how they are applied in practice.  However, in an 
imperfect world, history informs us that Zen Buddhist and Taoist 
philosophies are the least harmful traditional moral guides and the least 
likely to lead to atrocities (probably because in these East Asian 
traditions you develop a direct contemplative relationship with the Tao 
rather than have some authority figure tell you what God/Allah wants).

“Starting from a philosophy which emphasized quietism, nonaction, intuition 
and contemplation, the [Oriental] peoples have given rise to religions 
expressed in the intuitive poetry of the Upanishads or the informal 
conversations of Confucius… The Oriental peoples have also, by means of 
these philosophical assumptions and their attendant, more contemplative, 
pacifistic, less belligerent religious and political sentiments, kept their 
peoples out of bloody, nationalistic wars to the death to a degree which 
makes the fruits of Western religion in comparison look more like the 
product of Satan than of the Prince of Peace.”  (Northrop, 1947, p.294)

Matt K continued April 6th:

“Life is just too complicated to think that if we all held a series of 
specific philosophical views life would be better.  We are creating better 
and better cultures for creating better and better people, people who will 
care about nature, art, and politics (and using politics to help people), 
but I don't think creating Buddhists will help anymore than creating 
Christians, Pirsigians anymore than creating Deweyans.  That kind of hope, 
when pushed too far, is what created Plato: if we all followed his 
philosophy, true justice would prevail.”

Well, yes, you can push these things too far and I always thought there was 
something false in Plato’s contention that if everyone just had the correct 
theoretical understanding of truth and justice then these would be 
automatically achieved in practice (maybe Plato needed the MOQ and 
especially its distinction between the intellectual and social level to work 
with?).  On the other hand, if you frame your assertion another way (i.e. 
“because life is just too complicated, it’s therefore hopeless to think that 
philosophical views can improve life”) you will see there is _some_ truth in 
what Plato was suggesting and also _some_ truth in my rather tongue-in-cheek 
suggestion about us all becoming Zen Buddhists in achieving world peace and 
environmental harmony.  I don’t think such a change would completely achieve 
these aims but it would certainly improve matters (especially when you see 
the alternatives based on Fundamentalism, economic materialism and the 
development of “Dr Strangelove” strategies using nuclear weapons and oil).

Matt K thus concluded April 6th:

“I mean, just look at Platt.  You can say, as you and DMB and many other 
leftists here have, that he (and any other conservative) is distorting 
Pirsig's philosophy, but how far does that get you in convincing Platt that 
his political outlook is hurting people?  You get interminable debates about 
what Pirsig is really saying (which are good in themselves), but I would 
think it more efficient to debate the hurt caused by this or that political 
position, to have a political debate, not a philosophical or textual debate. 
  The latter debates _could_ help, but it also might just prove to be a 
distraction to what you really want changed anyway, what, in my opinion, is 
more important to be changed.”

If the MOQ couldn’t appeal to people such as Platt with their relatively 
static, conservative views then that would entail a large section of 
Westerners (especially in the United States) being overlooked.  This would 
therefore reduce the effectiveness of the Zen orientated message in ZMM and 
LILA as conservatives are as much part of the Western audience Pirsig is 
aiming at as well as the more Dynamic “artistic” people who might “get” his 
message sooner.  BTW, it’s not particularly Platt’s conservative views which 
I find particularly disturbing (though they are often so) but rather his 
uncritical reliance on authority and the mainstream media for the basis of 
his opinions.

However, despite being the most static MOQ person on this Discussion group 
politically, even Platt has his doubts about Fundamentalist Christianity (so 
beloved of the neo-cons) “What passes for morality today is soup of 
neoChristian, pseudo-religious sentiments about compassion, sharing and 
caring”(Platt to Khaled, April 10th 2006) and, more importantly, recognises 
the importance of the Dynamic.  In fact, if you read another one of Platt’s 
most recent posts on how aesthetics is his personal route to the Dynamic you 
will see more than a shade of Northrop’s (“The Meeting of East & West”, 
1946, p.471-72) observation that the indeterminate aesthetic component is 
the essential component in man’s nature which provides a ‘compassionate 
fellow-feeling not merely for other men but for all nature’s creatures, and 
serving to keep them more at peace with each other’:

“My personal path to the spiritual is through esthetics. To make the 
‘esthetically meaningless’ meaningful again is, IMO, a good place to start 
in an effort to revive a spiritual sense of worthiness.  The increasing 
emphasis on acquiring not just things, but fine things, is encouraging - the 
shift from flashy American cars to ‘quality’ foreign cars, in spite of 
America's best advertising efforts, being perhaps the most conspicuous 
recent example.”    (Platt to Arlo, Craig, Khaled & SA, April 5th 2006)

As Platt says, aesthetics is a good place to start “in an effort to revive a 
spiritual sense of worthiness.”  Once this state is achieved personally then 
‘compassionate fellow-feeling not merely for other men but for all nature’s 
creatures, and serving to keep them more at peace with each other’ will 
eventually follow.  I guess even becoming an artist such as a jazz musician 
can help this process.  As Pirsig observes in Chapter 18 of ZMM:

“Absence of [Dynamic] Quality is the essence of squareness.  Some artist 
friends with whom he had once traveled across the United States came to 
mind. They were negroes, who had always been complaining about just this 
Qualitylessness he as describing. Square. That was their word for it.”

“[Dynamic] Quality. That's what they'd been talking about all the time. 
‘Man, will you just please, kindly dig it,’ he remembered one of them 
saying, ‘and hold up on all those wonderful seven-dollar questions? If you 
got to ask what is it all the time, you'll never get time to know.’”

I therefore think it’s time to head for Wig City.

Best wishes,

Anthony.


www.robertpirsig.org

_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger 
7.5 today! http://join.msn.com/messenger/overview