[MD] dharma, the way, zazen, path, the morning fog, etc...

[kgt83dr at yahoo.com]

Hello SA.
  
<snip>
  
> > According to the Metaphysics of Quality there is no
> > reality apart from our
> > experience of it and there is no greater experience
> > than that which is made
> > possible through the human intellect.  And that's
> > where I have a problem with
> > the Metaphysics of Quality.
>
> What is intellect?
  
What I mean by human intellect is that which finds meaning in the human
mind.  In the following snip from ZMM Pirsig has just explained how a piece
of beer can could be used as shim stock.
  
     What emerged in vague form at first and then in sharper outline was the
     explanation that I had been seeing that shim in a kind of intellectual,
     rational, cerebral way in which the scientific properties of the metal were
     all that counted.  John was going at it immediately and intuitively, grooving
     on it.  I was going at it in terms of underlying form.  He was going at it in
     terms of immediate appearance.  I was seeing what the shim meant.  He
     was seeing what the shim was.
  
The term intellectual in the way it is used here conveys the sense that it is of
the mind.  Pirsig found meaning in the beer can’s utility.  Sutherland came at
it from an entirely different “dimension.”
  
>      What reality/experience would we know of outside
> of us knowing it?  Wouldn't we not know of something
> outside of our knowing of it?  Please clarify your
> comments above.
  
It’s a fine point but I would make a distinction between experience and
knowledge.  In the above example two people saw the same thing but
experienced it differently.  Because the beer can didn’t mean the same thing
to both of them the knowledge they took from it was different.  In this sense,
beer can as shim stock was not part of Sutherland’s reality.
  
> > My experience of reality has taught me that there
> > are much greater
> > experiences than those mediated by the human
> > intellect.  As I see it, science
> > and philosophy are the limits of what the human
> > intellect is capable of
> > producing.  And I think that's saying a lot. 
> > Science and philosophy are good
> > and valuable things.  The problem is they're not
> > very useful for answering
> > questions about faith, hope, love, forgiveness and
> > mercy.  People have
> > traditionally turned to art and religion for answers
> > to these questions.
> 
> What is science and philosophy according to you? 
> Philosophy for me is a way of life described.  How
> would philosophy not come to answer faith, hope, love,
> forgiveness, and mercy?  If these are very important
> aspects of our experience as human beings then would
> not these values have a quality that we would endear? 
  
Although he didn’t include philosophy, the distinction between science and
philosphy and art and religion is right out of ZMM.
  
     The first step down from Phædrus' statement that "Quality is the Buddha"
     is a statement that such an assertion, if true, provides a rational basis for
     a unification of three areas of human experience which are now disunified.
     These three areas are Religion, Art and Science. If it can be shown that
     Quality is the central term of all three, and that this Quality is not of many
     kinds but of one kind only, then it follows that the three disunified areas
     have a basis for introconversion.
  
I think Pirsig has correctly identified the three primary areas of human
experience.  I include philosophy in the area of science because of its
insistence on logical reasoning.  Although art and religion are sometimes
amenable to rational analysis they are not constrained by it.
  
> I understand faith has been debated by some, and that
> debate just follows their personal take on what faith
> is or if it even exists.  Quality and value would
> allow such personal opinions that values decree by
> forming individual realities (the sorting out of what
> life is according to what our values dictate and
> filter).  As to hope, this is a wish, a desire for
> something better - right?  Wouldn't that fall in step
> with our values and desire to have such values bring a
> quality of life to our experience.  Love is a sharing
> that is valuable.  I don't know I feel I could go
> through each one of your values and connect them with
> Pirsig's quality.  To me it seems you are debating not
> what value is or what quality is or maybe I don't know
> what you are debating.
  
I’m not debating.  I’m sharing my thoughts and feelings as I search for
meaning in the Metaphysics of Quality.
  
> But I do think you are
> debating the kind of values each person may have in
> the kind of quality of life we are motivated to have. 
> So it is each persons values you debate?  Isn't values
> Pirsigs point?  We have these values that define SQ
> amidst that undefined DQ that is way beyond our
> current thought as human beings.  We cannot think what
> DQ is, because once we do it is SQ.
  
Yes.  I would add that DQ is meaningless apart from some SQ framework.
  
> > If the Metaphysics of Quality were to be developed
> > further I wonder if its SQ
> > hierarchy would include something higher than the
> > intellectual level.  I wonder
> > how a level called a static pattern of mystical
> > quality would fit in?  Maybe it
> > could be worked out in a third book, An Inquiry into
> > Mysticism.
>
>      Mysticism is DQ.
  
<snip>
  
I disagree.  Mysticism and mystical experiences, because they have
meaning, are within some SQ framework.  Again, DQ apart from some SQ
framework is meaningless.  At least this is how I understand the Metaphysics
of Quality.
  
>      I guess it all depends on what you value and that
> is the kind of intellect you will have in shaping your
> intellectual level that influences each of the other
> levels.  Morals are the determinants in each of the
> levels.  Morals bring definition as to what justice is
> being done as when somebody is defining what is valued
> good and what is valued bad in their world.  If each
> level is not carefully attended then the level of
> chaos will show itself.  Balance - the middle way in
> our approach is important.  If we don't have balance
> in our individual worlds we are not helping define
> balance in the intellectual world that is also this
> universe.  Is not the universe intellectually
> understandable?  Remember, as well, intellect does not
> necessary mean just thought or mind or something in
> this tiny skull of ours.  Intellect is tied to our
> heart.  Our intellect is heart/mind and even it is
> heart/mind/body, and even is heart/mind/body/society,
> and even is heart/mind/body/society/nature, etc... 
> Our intellect is apart of all of these aspects of life
> that we may value. 
  
I make a distinction between mind and heart.  As I said, I see science and
philosophy, because of their insistence on logical reasoning, in the realm of
the mind.  And I see art and religion in the realm of the heart.  It's these
distinctions that are the basis for my saying that the Metaphysics of Quality
appears to be incomplete.
  
Hope this helps.
   
  
Kevin

		
---------------------------------
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.