[MD] belief

[Hamilton Priday]

Hello again, Pirsig fans --

No, you haven't gotten rid of me.  I've been following the discussion from 
the sidelines for several months, waiting for the right opportunity to butt 
in and clear the air, so to speak.  So many controversial statements are 
tossed out here with seeming impunity that one hardly knows where to begin. 
So let me start with one made by MOQ's author himself.

On Friday, Nov 2, David Buchanan quoted from two paragraphs of LILA, as 
follows:

> " ... Strictly speaking, the creation of any metaphysics is an immoral act 
> since it's a lower form of evolution, intellect, trying to devour a higher 
> mystic one.  The same thing that's wrong with philosophology when it tries 
> to control and devour philosophy is wrong with metaphysics when it tries 
> to devour the world intellectually.  It attempts to capture the Dynamic 
> within a static pattern.  But it never does.  You never get it right.  So 
> why try?  It's like trying to construct a perfect unassailable chess game. 
> No matter how smart you are you're never going to play a game that is 
> 'right' for all people at all times, everywhere.  Answers to ten questions 
> led to a hundred more and answers to those led to a thousand more.  Not 
> only would he never get it right; the longer he worked on it the wronger 
> it would probably get. . . . ".

Now this complaint appears in the final chapter, after Phaedrus has lost 
Lila to her madness and presumably collected his own thoughts on the 
philosophy that obsesses him.  It confirms what I have always believed was 
the author's personal love/hate relationship with "metaphysics" itself.  He 
knows that if Quality is to be introduced as a radical new philosophy, it 
must be packaged as a metaphysical thesis.  At the same time, he is torn by 
the mystical (i.e., spiritual) connotation that this term conjures up for 
his audience.

Pirsig (the author) dearly wants to be identified with the pragmatism of 
James and the logical positivists.  Pirsig (the philosopher) realizes that 
his Quality thesis doesn't conform to the principles of scientific logic. 
In his struggle to promote the philosophy of Quality while downplaying the 
metaphysics, he is faced with a Catch-22.  The result is this unfortunate 
statement denigrating intellect as "a lower form of evolution" than "the 
mystic one."

Phaedrus's "intellectual error", as I see it, is his assumption that 
mystical reality (or what I call Essence) is evolutionary.  The experience 
of Quality requires differentiation in time and space which only a creature 
of evolution can perceive.  The source of that Quality -- whether you call 
it DQ or Essence -- is not bound to such existential conditions.  In other 
words, the fault lies in the author's metaphysics rather than in the 
"quality experience" he is describing.  There is no need to reject either 
mysticism or metaphysics if your thesis is fundamentally sound.

Mark appeared to be making the same point in his dialog with David back in 
August.

Mark asked:
> Why does Pirsig choose the scientific levels of inorganic, biological,
> social, and intellectual in order to create a metaphysics based on 
> Quality?
> I know what they are, I am a scientist.  Why does Pirsig find this
> particular method of sorting helpful?
>
Dmb says:
> I suppose there are countless reasons but the central purpose is to 
> provide
> a set of moral codes based on an evolutionary hierarchy.
>
Mark follows up:
> Yes, there are countless reasons.  However, they must all fit with
> what Pirsig is trying to describe with these specific examples.  If I
> understand what dmb is saying, he is suggesting that each level is a
> moral code, and all four levels create a set.  If morality is indeed
> codified by the levels, what is it within the levels that results in
> morality?  Is it not better to say that morality creates these levels?
>
> My question to dmb, however, was more basic than that.  Why does
> Pirsig find it to be necessary to present metaphysics of Quality using
> the four levels?  What is fundamental about MoQ that necessitates
> this?  By answering this question I was hoping he would provide some
> insight into some fundamental arguments of Quality.  Are levels
> essential to create a metaphysics based on Quality?  Are there not
> some fundamental parameters which better describe it?
>
> dmb replies:
> Same answer. DQ is what drives the MOQ's evolutionary morality. It's the
> source and substance of all static patterns and forms to basis for the
> highest moral code, the one that says DQ is higher than even the most
> evolved static level.

Mark is questioning the need for an evolutionary hierarchy as a metaphysical 
premise.
And so am I.

Essentially yours,
Ham