[MD] Awareness and consciousness in the MOQ

[Ant McWatt]

Mark,

I've made some comments on your last post; here and there.  I hope you find them useful.

----------------------------------------
> 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 commented:
>
> Mark,
>
> Maybe Pirsig is just decrypting one message using the algorithm of another. ;-)
 
Yeah, got it.  Thanks for that!
 
Have you ever taken the beginning of Chapter 12 (lila) and in place of
the words put in the roots of the words?  So, for example (using
Dictionary.com): Quality: "1250–1300; Middle English qualite  < Old
French  < Latin quālitās,  equivalent to quāl ( is ) of what sort +
-itās -ity".  Or, Level: "1300–50; Middle English  (noun and v.),
variant of livel  (noun) < Middle French  < Vulgar Latin *lībellum,
for Latin lībella  plummet line, level, diminutive of lībra  balance,
scales; for formation, see castellum" (where catellum gives you:"<
Latin:  fortified settlement, fortress < *casterlom  < *castṛlom  <
*castrelom,  equivalent to castr ( a ) (neuter plural) fortified camp
+ *-elom  diminutive suffix; see -ule, -elle)".
 
We use certain words for a reason even if we do not know why.  If you
have the time, break down the beginning of Chapter 12 and see what you
find through root word replacement (you get to choose the root you
use).  It may surprise you.  It may free up your mind.

Ant McWatt comments:

Something to "free up my mind" that costs nothing and is legal...  I will make a definite note of that.  
Seriously, that could be an interesting exercise  presumably analogous to taking an x-ray of an old master.


> 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”.
 
Yes, I would agree with the distortion there, but we are more clever than that.  

Ant McWatt comments:

I understand this might be just be a stylistic issue but this "we are more clever" phrasing sounds to me 
like a suspect politican "doing a number". 


Mark Smith continued:

Once Quality is understood, God is easy to come by in
terms of understanding.  Certainly Pirsig wants to stay away from the
mess of dogmatic religion, and I am with him all the way on that!  It
is difficult being a spokesperson.
>
> 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.
 
I think that Dawkins is a complete buffoon if you want my opinion, 

Ant McWatt comments:

I think that's a little harsh.  Again, like many people he was just brought up a certain way 
and maybe wasn't just open minded enough at a critical time in his life.  Maybe , he just 
needs to stay in one of those old haunted hotels for a few nights - which we have a number of 
in England - or take a good dose of LSD and take things from there.


Mark Smith continued:

...and he does not speak for scientists.  Believe me, I work with scientists,
and many of them are mystics as well.  As you know, science came out
of religion; monasteries became universities.  Bacon was a very
religious man, as were many of the early scientists.  Science and
religion walk hand in hand, and they cannot be separated.
 
This whole concept of "faith" is also one that tends towards
distortion.  People have faith in science as well, to the point where
they believe what scientists tell them.  

Ant McWatt comments:

Good point.


Mark Smith continued:

This is the whole predominant
area of Scientism that I often rail against.  No, God, like Quality,
is not supernatural and was never meant to be until the militant
religion used it as such to gain political power (ah, the follies of
man).  One does not need faith to know that a God exists for them.
This God is simply a relationship with 'what is'.  Much such belief is
certainly much better than the "evolutionary theory" that is the mode
of the day.  Sure, data can be interpreted within such a theory, but
it can also be interpreted in many other ways.  People do not take the
time to realize this and simply accept the latest fad.  Especially if
Scientists say it is so.
 
I am not sure if you know what praying really is.  Have you done it
successfully?  Do you at times sit in wonder of Dynamic Quality and
contemplate on it?  Do you see things differently when in such
contemplation?  It is so easy to dismiss such things as "praying" in
our existentialist environment as silly.  

Ant McWatt comments:

Contemplation is probably a better word to use - in this context - as "prayer" 
has too many traditional connotations associated with it.  Anyway, if this is 
understood, I do think there's a time and place for it.


Mark Smith continued:

If you take a look at some of the great philosophers (yes, people smarter than you), 

Ant McWatt comments:

If they were that smart, one of them might have resolved the value problem 
before Pirsig did.  


Mark Smith continued:

I do not think you would find them silly or misguided.  They thought about
these things a lot, and some realized the value of some kind of
personal God.  I found the writings of Kierkegaard quite enlightening
at one time.

Ant McWatt comments:

I will take a proper look at Kierkegaard.  I've enjoyed the quotes I've heard by him from time to time.  
Otherwise, I'm sure these great thinkers you talk about were sincere in their beliefs.


Mark Smith continued:
 
We certainly do not want any sloughing off.  It is up to the
interpreters of MoQ to not allow such a thing to happen.  However, as
soon as one brings in the indefinable stuff, you lose most of your
audience.  For those are terms from religion.  

Ant McWatt comments:

Dynamic Quality, Quality and even values aren't religious terms.  Also, as the site administrator of 
robertpirsig.org, I've never had anyone write to me to say they liked all this Pirsig stuff until he 
started introducing the indefinable.  People occasionally want to buy the ZMM bike or sell a book or 
have a serious philosophical query.  Maybe you're thinking of a colleague at work you gave a 
copy of ZMM to or a similar scenario?


Mark Smith continued:

There were times when
not even the name of God was allowed to be spoken, no images are
allowed even today in Islam.  I do not think we need to go there,
unless we cannot find a better way to explain Quality.

Ant McWatt comments:

There's that suspect politician again....  I like the attitude of the mystics in John 
Blofeld's "Taoist Mysteries & Magic" (1973).  They just don't hung up on all this stuff.  
They know the statues and the rituals and the praying to a deity helps many of the ordinary 
people who visit them or their monasteries so they're happy to retain such traditions. They 
don't "believe" in such things though!   I guess the more enlightened leaders of other 
religions take the same attitude.


> 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 commented:
>
> 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?
 
The reason I say this is to not form "camps" of the MoQ and anti-MoQ.
There is enough within MoQ to allow all in.  As soon as we berate
other forms of metaphysics as wrong, we create a little club of MoQ
and stop its spread. 

Ant McWatt comments:

That's a difficult issue as the MOQ is just going to be incompatible on some level with other 
philosophies and belief systems. FSC Northrop tried to deal with a similar issue in his books 
"The Meeting of East & West" and "The Taming of the Nations".


Mark Smith continued:

I do not see why Pirsig has to become a Priest
in all of this and preach from the pulpit. I find priests to be
abhorrent since they cannot seem to move on, and want to trap people
on a path and not let them move on either.  Religion should be a means
to an end, and not an end in itself.  These priests just go stuck.
 
Yes, Pirsig wrote some good stuff, but none of it was new by any means. 

Ant McWatt comments:

Not putting values ahead of subjects and objects in the empirical train of events wasn't a new idea?  
Then adding in LILA that these values are evolving and can be ordered in a moral framework? 

Where else have you read those two particular ideas (pre-Pirsig)?


Mark Smith continued:

It seems to me that Pirsig has no idea what God is.  He seems
to be off on his horse battling windmills creating a nemesis that does
not exist (I say this just to be provocative in case you do not know
me yet).  Perhaps I am wrong, but this anti-theism stuff seems rather
ignorant to me.
>
> 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?).
 
Nobody can intercede.  There are some that have a gift for showing
others a different path, but the path must be travelled alone.  Me?  I
have been a fan of Quality since 1974.  Since Pirsig seemed as if he
was not going to write anymore on it, I worked on it myself.  At one
point this was to disastrous ends, and I needed a break.  It is
certainly not something that you can understand from reading a book,
as I am sure you are aware.  The point is, what does one do with such
a belief (yes, belief)?

Ant McWatt comments:

I'd rather say awareness.  You're either on the bus or you're not.


> Hope these last two paragraphs don't sound too farcical!
 
Not at all, I always enjoy a discussion.  Don't worry about hurting my
feelings, I know Quality and it is real.  It is not some argument that
needs to be supported.  My point was, that there is no need to fight
against God, since that is not the point of MoQ.  It is just
distracting and trivial.  We are not atheists that continually need to
show how atheist we are.  For to do that implies that one really does
believe in the power of God.  I do not see anything of power there.

Ant McWatt comments:

Yes, I tend to put atheists and people who believe in a theistic type of God in the 
same category. 


 Mark Smith continued:

I hope I have given some of my points of view in an understandable
fashion.

Ant McWatt comments:

You're getting there Mark.


Mark Smith continued:

I am happy to drop this God stuff (I had a long battle with
dmb at one time), and move on.  My interest at this point is the
relationship between DQ and SQ, in metaphysical analogies of course.
Perhaps you could present that in a nutshell.  I would be most
grateful for your opinion there.  I would love to get into detail
there always understanding that DQ is before some thing.

Ant McWatt comments:

Sounds like you need to look at a copy of my PhD (as Jan Anders) has helpfully pointed 
out elsewhere!  The Preface can be read for free at:

http://robertpirsig.org/PhD.htm

Best wishes,

Ant



.