[MD] Concepts and reality.

[MarshaV]

Marsha:  
And let's not forget Nagarjuna, who pushed back against the two extremes during the first century C.E.  



On Apr 30, 2011, at 12:11 PM, david buchanan wrote:

> 
> Horse said:
> The way I see it is that the only thing that's real is Quality - and Pirsig/MoQ splits this into Static Quality and Dynamic Quality.
> 
> 
> Arlo replied:
> Right, "Quality is the primary empirical reality of the world" (LILA). But then you seem to go on and say that only DQ is "reality", and SQ is "illusion". I think this is a mistake, and I think it's because it continues to use the "real" in some existential sense rather than an empirical one.   ...its apparent we define "illusion" differently. To me being "not entirely correct" does not make something an "illusion". What is an illusion is the consideration of subjects and objects as primary existants. Failing to see Quality, failing to see that "reality" is empirical and not existential, this is the illusion.  ...When Pirsig talks about "gooning out" when he meets Redford, he says, "It was no subjective illusion. It's a very real primary reality, an empirical perception." (LILA) Our empirical perceptions, they are what is real, they define what is "real" as precisely a experiential phenomenon and not as an existential one.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> I think that's a very clear and neat way to put it, Arlo. We could think about this in terms of the basic set up. As Pirsig is just about to launch into the MOQ proper, he addresses the concerns of the two main opponents of metaphysics; the positivists and the mystics. They oppose metaphysics for two completely different reasons. The positivists, operating with materialist assumptions, say that metaphysics is meaningless. They'll be extremely skeptical, if not completely dismissive, of any statement that can't be verified through direct observation. For them, physical reality is what's real and true statements are the ones that correspond to it. The mystics, on the other hand, reject metaphysics because they're operating on the view that reality is outside of language and beyond all concepts. Ideas don't bring you closer to reality, they say, it has to be known directly, through non-conceptual experience. 
> Rather than simply take sides with one or the other, Pirsig sort of splits the difference here and proceeds with his metaphysics despite their objections. He agrees with the positivist's empiricism but says that positivism was rejecting metaphysics for metaphysical reasons and he says these empiricists aren't empirical enough. He agrees with the mystic's assertion that metaphysics is just a menu and ought not be confused with the actual food. But he also says that forming a coherent picture of reality is just part of life. The only one who doesn't pollute the mystical reality with conceptual understandings hasn't been born yet, he says. And to make a long story short, the MOQ splits the difference in such a way that we get pragmatism and mysticism at the same time. The MOQ is both. And experience is central to both. 
> So the MOQ says that experience is what's real. The primary empirical reality (DQ) is the food and the menu (sq) is valuable and helpful to the extent that it helps you get the food. In other words, the point and purpose of static quality is to successfully guide the ongoing course of experience, to serve life. The intellect isn't rejected so much as it is demoted, stripped of it's pretensions to eternal truth and absolute certainty. This was James's purpose too. Like Pirsig, he traces the problem all the way back to Plato and the ancients. James calls it "vicious abstractionism". Intellectualism becomes vicious, he said, when concepts are reified, deified and the empirical reality from which they were abstracted in the first place is denigrated as less than real. And so James and Pirsig push back against this. They see the dominance of the intellect as a distortion and they both say concepts are always secondary and subservient. There is a point and purpose to this abstracti
> ng function. It's definitely not something we want to throw away or dismiss as an illusion. Static patterns of the menu are only an "illusion" if you're confusing them with the food. 
> 
> It's concepts AND reality, you know? Not concepts vs reality. 
> 
> In what sense were those 1945 bombs not real? Shall we just shrug it off because all that death and destruction was ultimate and eternal? Because it only ruined "conventional" realities or contingent beings? No that is exactly the problem with vicious abstractionism. It doesn't explain human suffering so much as it explains it AWAY. Betterness or meliorism is at the heart of the move against this kind of nihilistic otherworldliness. 
> 



 
___