[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Ant McWatt]

>The anti-intellectualism in Pirsig has been wildly exaggerated. As far 
>as static quality goes, intellect is as good as it gets. Excellence in 
>thought and speech has always been his art, right? 

Ant McWatt comments:

Thanks for the reminder there Dave.  In fact, Pirsig was such an intellectual, it could be argued the quest to define Quality was the tipping point that made him (at least appear to be) insane.

>The dramatic struggle with Plato (from the end of ZAMM) is another good 
>way to think about it. There the issue is framed as a contest between 
>Quality and intellect, where the Sophists were teaching Quality while 
>Plato was making everything subordinate to intellect, to fixed and 
>eternal ideas. 

Patrick Doorly, the Oxford University academic with an interest in the MOQ, suggests this is why Homer's two epic poems/stories are of particular interest as they were written before Plato "fixed" the Good (in more ways than one).

----------------------------------------

Dave Buchanan stated April 8th:

The dramatic struggle with Plato (from the end of ZAMM) is another good way to think about it. There the issue is framed as a contest between Quality and intellect, where the Sophists were teaching Quality while Plato was making everything subordinate to intellect, to fixed and eternal ideas. Phaedrus's mission was not to destroy intellect but merely reverse the priority so that intellect would be subordinate to Quality. We see this spelled out in Lila's moral codes, where the code of art says that DQ trumps intellectual static quality. It's also true, however, that DQ is THE ONLY thing that can trump intellectual static quality. Even further, the purpose of making intellect subordinate to DQ is to improve the intellect, to expand rationality at its roots. 
The anti-intellectualism in Pirsig has been wildly exaggerated. As far as static quality goes, intellect is as good as it gets. Excellence in thought and speech has always been his art, right? 
Thanks gents - a good discussion on an important topic. 
 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------- 
Ant McWatt quoted 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'."
 
Andre said:
... I do not think that words 'are ruining the ultimately undefined nature of reality'. ...
 
 
Ant McWatt commented:
> Yes, in other words, it's fine to use words to describe the world in which we
> live as their use improves our (general) quality of life - as long as it's remembered the 
> descriptions they create are limited and will always leave something out; 
> being analogous to a one page Abstract for a one thousand page book.



.