[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Ant McWatt]

Ant McWatt commented April 8th 2012:

Andre,

You're thinking of a paragraph in Pirsig's letter dated August 17th 1997 in the
McWatt-Pirsig Letters PDF:

"People with scientific training often think of the term , 'mystic' as a
synonym for 'demented,' but by mystic I only mean that which is known but is
inherently without any kind of intellectual definition.  If Dynamic
Quality were merely called 'God' or 'oneness' [such people] would have it shoved
out of philosophic bounds without question.  But they cannot shove Quality
out of bounds.  Mystic or not, they can't deny it exists.  They
cannot eliminate it as a meaningful term.  In fact 'meaningful' means
'having social or intellectual quality'." 

 
Mark Smith stated April 8th:

With all respect to Pirsig, the quote above indicates that he has no concept of
what "God" means.  God is not definable.  He falls into the modern trap
of treating God like an object.  It is no more an object than his Quality. 
Understanding this brings one respect for those with a dynamic
relationship with "what is".  


Ant McWatt comments:

Mark,

Maybe Pirsig is just decrypting one message using the algorithm of another. ;-)

Two serious points: 

1. Though Pirsig doesn’t like to interchange the words (because the former term
has a lot of distortive, traditional connotations from established religions), “God”
can be used as a synonym for “Dynamic Quality”.

2. To return to these “people with scientific training” (read logical positivists;
Richard Dawkins?) in the quote from the above letter, Pirsig would say that you
need some sort of faith to believe in God (at least if you’re including some sort
of supernatural personality in your understanding that you can pray to).  However, 
you don’t need any faith whatsoever to know that values exist.  You don’t pray to 
Dynamic Quality!  As such, the latter is more difficult for an atheist or logical 
positivist to ignore or “slough off” in a metaphysical construction of the world.

 
Mark Smith continued April 8th:

We can objectify all we want, but that is missing the point of MOQ.  Comparisons 
can be useful, but only if used with positive intent.  Trying to elevate Quality 
at the expense of fundamental understanding is somewhat farcical.  Quality is not 
farcical.  The term merely is condescending and comes from ignorance.  Let's not 
go there, we are better than that, we have belief.


Ant McWatt comments:

Mark, this all sounds very worthy, though God knows why comparisons can be useful “only
if used with positive intent” (what if you’re neither being positive or negative but, 
at least initially, impartial?) or why (if I’m reading you right) you think Pirsig’s use 
of the word “God” is “condescending and comes from ignorance.”  Isn’t someone such as a 
priest interceding on a congregation’s behalf with the Divine essentially condescending?  

Moreover, isn’t the belief that you can indeed intercede on someone else’s behalf in this 
manner derived from an essentially limited and (relatively) ignorant view of the world?  
Finally, YOU might have belief but you haven’t said in what or whom (e.g. do you mean 
belief in the MOQ, Dynamic Quality, your capability to think and analyze or something 
else entirely?).  

Hope these last two paragraphs don't sound too farcical!

Best wishes,

Ant




.