[MD] Words and Metaphysical Mysticism.

[David Harding]

Hi Mark,

> Perhaps I misunderstood what you wrote.  I can only interpret what I read
> through that which I am.  I will try to clarify some below.

Right, and hopefully we both, through our discussions, try and become better people..

> Mark:
> My request was for examples.  With your statement above, I am left without
> the ability to comprehend your position.  I cannot necessarily be held at
> fault for this.

My example was this last post of yours.. And this one now.

> Mark:
> What I wrote stands unless you can explain why it is misguided.
> I apologize  for the personal nature of my retort.

Apology accepted. I explained why it was misguided in the last post and will do so again in this post.

> Mark:
> Perhaps what I write it does not impart much meaning to your understanding
> of society.  A society is an expression of the social level, like a tree is
> an expression of the biological level.  Language is a tool used by the
> social level which provides us with a personal sense of awareness in
> relation to others.  It is provided to us as a means to incorporate the
> social level into our sense of existence.  As I stated, the biological
> level does not have language.  The biological level has a different form of
> communication, as does the inorganic. (Perhaps you are using "language" to
> impart communication in general.) One cannot claim that language is part of
> these levels, it just does not make sense.  The "mystic level" is also
> language free, it is a personal awareness which can then try to use
> language.  This explains why it is so hard to use language to impart the
> mystical.  My argument is based on a separation of the levels in terms of
> their "awareness".  The communication of the biological level is different
> from the communication of the social level.  The intellectual level uses
> language from the social level in the same way that the social level uses
> communication from the biological level (nerve impulses for example).

I agree with all of this except that we do use words from the perspective of the biological level.  The sounds we make when we speak can represent things on the biological level… e.g.   Ohhhhhh mmmm yeeeeessss, thaaaat's goooood.

> Your argument claims that we are speaking from a "higher" level.  This
> would be akin to saying that each instrument of an orchestra speaks from
> the symphony level.  It is the other way around.  Each instrument is a
> component of the symphony level, and the symphony speaks for itself.

This is a mischaracterisation of my argument.  

> Mark:
> Well yes, I did admit that I did not understand what you mean.  What you
> reply with with does not help me either.  Language is description.  It is a
> means by which we can impart that which is occurring before language, to
> each of us.  I believe it is important to understand that the static level
> cannot exist on its own.  Such superficial ideas of existence is where we
> find ourselves in the 21st century, and is what MOQ is trying to rectify.
> Metaphysics draws us into a realm from which we can deliver metaphysical
> presentations.  Metaphysics cannot stand on its own in the static quality
> level, it is a description of more than itself.  It is a description of
> that which brings metaphysics forth. It is pointing not encapsulating.

I disagree.  Metaphysics does stand on its own in the static quality levels.  In fact, it stands on its own in the intellectual level.  Metaphysics is, by its very nature, encapsulating.  It is a degenerate activity.  It captures that which should not be caught - namely - DQ.  

"To the intellect the process of defining Quality has a compulsive quality of its own. It produces a certain excitement even though it leaves a hangover afterward, like too many cigarettes, or a party that has lasted too long. Or Lila last night. It isn't anything of lasting beauty; no joy forever. What would you call it? Degeneracy, he guessed. Writing a metaphysics is, in the strictest mystic sense, a degenerate activity." -Lila

> Mark:
> When I mentioned "he" above, I meant Pirsig.
> A metaphysics is a discussion of the nature of being.  Such discussion does
> contain the "ultimate", unless you are envisioning beyond such "nature of
> being".  The perspective of the intellect has its roots outside of the
> intellect.  It is governed by the four levels, and the intellect is not the
> intellectual level, any more than an instrument is the symphony.  In my
> opinion, words are descriptive of something.  In themselves they present a
> static appearance but do not refer to themselves.  Such a referral would be
> empty and two dimensional, like a shadow on a cave floor.  Static Quality
> is such a shadow, but we must get beyond the idea of shadows describing
> themselves.  We must look to the source of the shadows.  Obviously MOQ is
> not new is suggesting this.

The MOQ does not say we should look to the 'source of the shadows'(DQ).   In fact, it's created so that we can look at the shadows(sq).  The first division of the MOQ is between DQ and sq.  This division has been created so we can intellectually put aside all mystical concerns and focus on the intellectual value of the static patterns themselves.   The MOQ is degeneracy.   Mystic degeneracy.  Need I repost another Pirsig quote which says as much?

The MOQ is actually opposed to the 'source of the shadows' in that it is ultimately defining that which ought not be defined...

> Mark:
> This is only impossible if one believes that a description is the thing
> itself.

So it's a matter of belief? I can believe that the sky is red.  Does that change he colour of the sky?

>  When I describe a boat, that description is not the boat.  

Really, that description is the boat.  Yes it's a good idea to think that the boat exists 'out there' but really that's just an idea just like your description of the boat!

> When
> describe an awareness based on Quality, that is not Quality.  Pirsig is
> fearful of definitions because others may think that what he is providing
> is an encapsulation of Quality.

Would someone fearful of definitions write a Metaphysics which is just about the largest thing you can define?  Pirsig literally embraces the degeneracy of the intellect at the start of Lila and proceeds to be a mystic degenerate by defining the MOQ.  Pirsig says that the MOQ is an encapsulation of Dynamic Quality!   When you say Quality are you referring to Dynamic Quality or are you conflating the two like a bad mystic?

> He wrote Lila in order to explain his
> manner of looking at things.  It was a personal inquiry.  I agree with the
> value, but not with the pollution.  It only pollutes the uninitiated, like
> a bible pollutes those who expect to be given the answer.  If one thinks
> that the words in Lila (and other writings of his) is Quality, then such
> person does not understand the message.  The continual "proofs" presented
> for one's argument which resort to quoting Pirsig is no different from a
> Christians quoting the Bible to demonstrate that God exists.  Pirsig could
> have used any number of words and concepts to present how he saw things.

I'm afraid it is you Mark who doesn't understand the message. The message is one of mystical degeneracy.    Your denial that the MOQ is degeneracy is actually spoken about in Lila..

"But the answer to all this, he thought, was that a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity, identified, ceases to be purity. Objections to pollution are a form of pollution. The only person who doesn't pollute the mystic reality of the world with fixed metaphysical meanings is a person who hasn't yet been born — and to whose birth no thought has been given. The rest of us have to settle for being something less pure. Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life."

Your fear of others being biblical fanatics could not be more telling.   "Look out for Mark being a biblical fanatic everyone!"….   And sure enough … You are being a biblical fanatic with your doctrinaire avoidance of claiming that the MOQ is degenerate. Pretending that you do not ruin the undefined nature of the universe…. . Ugly purity degeneracy…  

> David, you are describing this "source" as undefined.  This is not
> uncommon.  Definitions come as a result of taking in what we are part of
> and then formulate words to describe it.  It obviously stands to reason
> that a definition cannot come before we create such a thing.  To describe
> where definitions come from as "a source of all things" is simply a logical
> statement implying that we create definitions.  It does not point to
> anything as a source.

Right, it's an intellectual metaphysical statement about where definitions come from.  These statements ruin the ultimately mystical nature of the universe

> It would appear that you are bringing in the biological level with forceful
> social overtones in terms of "becoming a better person".  What is good and
> what is bad?  What I try to do is express myself from a personal position
> of Arete.  While this does contain social overtones.  My Arete comes from
> the biological level and derives its drive from the inorganic level.  At
> the same time, I do hope that I present myself as a person in search of
> self-improvement.

We all know what's good and bad Mark, you don't need to link that to the inorganic level…   SOM needs to link everything to the objective world as ideas 'don't really exist'.  Your insistence that your quality judgements come from the inorganic level indicates that you still see things, as does Marsha, from a SOM based perspective...

> Pirsig writes about control of one opinion by another.  This is not where I
> am coming from.  In my opinion, discussing Quality creates a forum in which
> others can be drawn into being more aware of Dynamic Quality.

I don't understand your characterisation of Pirsig, however if you don't agree with him in any areas and are admittedly spouting something which is in contradiction to what he has said then that is very curious...

> Any discussion is an exchange of ideas.  Ideas can lead to further
> awareness.  This awareness is not the idea itself, but what the idea does
> to one's own ability to further describe existence.  Once we understand
> that the "capture" which Pirisg is referring to as a ghost, then there is
> no fear of capture.  Metaphysics does not devour the world intellectually,
> it simply expresses it.  If I write about a horseback riding trip, I am not
> devouring that experience.
> 
> As I have stated before, the intellectual can promote the mystical, if one
> is willing.

Could not disagree more Mark and this is why I wrote my post.  Your words, by their very fixed nature, destroy the mystical nature of the universe.  This is what Metaphysics does.  It destroys the mystical.  If you want mystical understanding, go on a Zen retreat, do not partake in a philosophical discussion board.  Metaphysics is by definition, intellectually very valuable yet mystically degenerate.  There are quotes which I've posted here, from Lila, which say this.  If you disagree with these quotes then you do not agree with the MOQ.  I have no trouble with you being a mystic.  I do have trouble with you claiming that the intellect does not destroy the mystical nature of the universe.  This isn't just bad intellectually, it's bad mysticism as well.

Furthermore, you conflate static quality experience with that of Dynamic Quality.  Horseback riding is a static quality experience.  Your intellectual descriptions of Horseback riding describe the experience of the static quality of riding a horse -  not Dynamic Quality.

> I suppose you are projecting an ultimately mystic nature of the universe
> which somehow lies outside our participation in it.  In fact, it seems to
> me you are suggesting that our participation in such a universe
> is detrimental to such mystical nature.  I would look at it a different
> way.  Our expression stems from that which forms such expression.  Since it
> lies in the arena of dynamic quality, we can describe it as mystical (which
> is personal revelation).  Our intellectual capability is a result of such
> mystical and can not destroy it any more than an appreciation of music
> would destroy the music.
> 
> Just some opinions which I am in no way married to.

Your denial that you are married to opinions shows that you do not value the distinction between Dynamic Quality and static quality.  I call this bad mysticism.  All your opinions are fixed and static and you *are* your opinions.   A good mystic knows very clearly the distinction between Dynamic Quality and static quality so that they can easily point to Dynamic Quality.   You want to have Dynamic Quality for yourself by denying the distinction between static quality and Dynamic Quality.   Dynamic Quality is not yours Mark.  It's not mine nor anyone else's.  It's before all distinctions of you, me, metaphysics and everything else.  By putting names on it we are trying to capture it.   The MOQ recognises the degeneracy in doing so.  You don't recognise your degeneracy in trying to pretend away the clear distinction between sq and DQ and capturing DQ for yourself.  This is the degeneracy of bad mysticism and fanaticism.

Thank-you,

-David.