[MD] MeTaPhYsic of MaDneSs

[Ham Priday]

Greetings, Joe [Ron quoted] --


[Ron]:
> The experiences that coincide with others is called sanity,
> the ones that do not are mystical. It's the mystical experience
> which drives the dynamism of the social level.  If the
> individual can convey their own experience in a way
> that is believable or that society is open to particular types
> of mystical expression. ie: visions, religious experiences, art.

[Joe]:
> Pirsig proposes a DQ(undefined)/SQ(defined) metaphysical
> division of reality.  How can I know and talk about the
> undefined like the boundary between the inorganic and
> organic level of evolution?  The knowing was attributed to
> undefined mystical experience, and talking was through analogy
> and metaphor.  It was agreed that the boundaries between
> levels are mystically apprehended.  Religious experiences,
> visions, art are extensions of undefined experience that are
> not necessarily metaphysical except by analogy, becoming in
> your parlance a definition of MYSTICISM.  This extends
> mysticism into areas of definition from SOM.

I think you're both applying labels injudiciously to what should be regarded 
as either an objective or a philosophical approach to understanding.

Ron's assertion that universal experience is "sanity", whereas subjective 
experience is "mystical" is an unnecessary distortion of these terms, since 
both kinds of experience are common to sane and insane people.  Aren't you 
simply saying that shared experience leads to knowledge "by consensus", 
while proprietary experience cannot be universally validated?   Unless 
you're talking about paranormal experiences, such as seeing the face of Mary 
on a grotto wall, there's nothing particularly "mystical" about art or 
religious concepts, or the affects these values have on the individual.

Likewise, Joe's use of  the words "defined" and "undefined" in relation to 
metaphysical concepts is misleading.  Everything known in existence (SOM) 
can be defined, even if not fully explained.  That MoQ's author chose not to 
define SQ, DQ, Quality Patterns, Intellect, or the Conscious Self does not 
mean that such concepts are undefinable.

In fact, most metaphysical concepts can be defined, although they are 
typically incapable of description.  For example, the concept of God, 
Essence, or Absolute Source eludes description because descriptive terms 
apply to experienced attributes or properties.  However, as Cusanus 
demonstrated in the 15th century, the transcendent source can be defined as 
"the coincidence of all contrariety, the 'Not-Other' which is not opposed to 
any [actualized] other."   For the same reason, we can't describe 
Nothingness, but we can define it either as "that which does not exist" or 
"that from which nothing can come."

I would suggest that an effort be made to define the problematic terms of 
the MoQ before concluding that the 'levels ontology' is metaphysically 
incomprehensible.  Ideally, such a project would be undertaken by an 
acknowledged scholar of Pirsig's philosophy and developed as a glossary or 
addendum to the author's published works.   It would go a long way toward 
making the Quality thesis comprehensible to newcomers, as well as providing 
an "official guide" to the most controversial issues.

Best regards,
Ham