[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

[John Carl]

Good Morning, Dan.

On 8/9/15, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Jc:  Meaning is found in experience rather than abstractions from
>> experience.  The MoQ is an abstraction from experience and should not be
>> confused with the Quality it talks about.
>
> Dan:
> It appears to me that your first sentence contradicts the second. In
> Lila, Robert Pirsig writes that the metaphysics of quality could just
> as well be called the metaphysics of meaning. Meaning is found in
> abstraction, after experience.
>

Jc:  I was trying to think about it phenomenologically - all our
meanings should be grounded in concrete phenomenon, no?  Even when
they take off on flights of fancy, that connection is there.  Meaning
is abstraction!  I agree.  And likewise abstractions must be  in
experience.  Grounding your meanings in abstractions, is like building
castles in the air.  There's nothing underneath to support any of it.
It used to be assumed that abstractions were grounded in objective
reality, but certain philosophers of old showed that to be a bankrupt
notion, and that was classical pragmatism, neh?  My thesis is that the
MoQ has built upon that same premise, albeit a different structure,
there is synonomous grounding.

And Pirsig's quote that you could just as well call the Metaphysics of
Quality, the Metaphysics of Meaning is EXACTLY what I'm saying...





>>JC:
>> The fact that there are individuals with different experiences, who find
>> the MoQ meaningful to them, should be praised and celebrated rather than
>> frowned-upon and quashed.
>
> Dan:
> I'm not frowning. Just making a point. See? :-) No frown here!

Jc:  You've been a good friend to me, Dan.  I've always appreciated
your wit and honesty, ever since we argued with Ron over
bear-killings.



>
> Dan:
> Sure. As I've been saying, we need to focus our attention on what
> Robert Pirsig is saying, not on what we think he is saying.

Jc:  Well, no.  Well, perhaps.  We need to focus our individual
attention on the meaning of Pirsig's work and words and that takes the
form of assimilating his concepts into the rest of our life and
thought.  That work of integration is important and individual, while
what we write about, and reinforce socially, is something else.  I
think our focus should be upon the underlying meanings of "what we
hold in common".  That is, the work of understanding each other's
"light" and appreciation of Pirsig's work.  I think there's been far
too much analytic ripping-apart and far too little integrative work,
on this list.  For me, part of the integrative work, is digging down
to the roots of thought, specifically American philosophical
assumptions and background.  I like the idea as Wilshire puts is,
"Primal is Primary" and starting there.  Very few philosophers in the
modern pantheon have explicitly done that - Pirsig is just about alone
on that peak.

But any idea does need sharp criticism and poking and analytic
thought.  So I can see how we slip into that so easily.  It's pretty
much the only process there is, for intellectual patterns.


>> Jc:  Well, all that might come true, and the world will be speaking
>> Chinese, the way things are going...
>
> Dan:
> And is there something inherently wrong with that?


Jc:  No, but it'd be different than what we expect in the present!  I
really don't think we can think about the future in a concrete way.
Probably the best thing would be to think of the future we'd like to
live, and think about that.


Jc snip to:



>>... Seeing this weaving, it's a beautiful thing.  I can't un-see it, just because you say it doesn't fit.  Show me how, it doesn't fit.
>

> Dan:
> That would take way more effort than I'm willing to commit. I tend to
> believe lots of people lump the work of Robert Pirsig into many other
> philosophers in order to say: there... I've got it. This is what he
> means... just the same as Emerson, Dewey, James, Whitehead, and on and
> on. To me, that is a grave mistake. But then again, that's just my
> opinion.

Jc:  Of course it's just your opinion, as mine is as well.  Why is it
a grave mistake?  Pirsig himself did it!  When reading the Tao, when
reading James, he came upon the maps of other great thinkers and
rejoiced to find niches of congruence.  Why is that a bad thing?  Do
you think Pirsig would get lost in a crowd?  Man, it's just the
opposite.  The crowd is noticed, the man is ignored.  Ideas need
crowds.




> Dan:
> I guess I'm not all that bright. It's taken me the better part of two
> decades of work to get a grasp on the MOQ and even now I'm pretty sure
> there are nuances that I'm missing. That doesn't mean I'll never get
> it... just that I have to keep on keeping on.

Jc:  I don't think it matters how bright you are.  I'm not a genius.
Philosophy just grabbed me at a young age and I always kept going, in
a semi-dillitanteish way, and was never overly-distracted by the
pursuit of material gain. :)  I think there was a lot of coinciding on
my path, where Pirsig tied a lot of ends together and then this list
has been a boon, kicking my thoughts toward this book or that.  It's
been a blast, really.

And to tell you the truth Dan, I wonder if a religious upbringing
isn't a bit conducive to the consideration of abstract problems.  One
reason I started at a young age, was the religious background makes
you think about stuff that is "other-worldly" in a way that encourages
those of philosophic tempermant.  Pirsig certainly was raised in such
an environment, I'm sure.  Everybody was back in those days.

These days kids are raised with no weighty problems to solve.  it's
"anything goes" and the only problems are those of the erotic self.
This development bodes ill for the ideal future I am trying to
envision.

At the same time, any sort of mass religious conversion is going to be
nothing but hell on earth.  All that pent-up angst and denied rage
suddenly channeled through manipulation of mass-mind.  Shivers..   So
it's a quandry, it certainly is.






>
>>JC:
>> The issue is this:  The meaning of any system is constrained to the
>> context
>> which surrounds it.  For instance, "christianity" has a completely
>> different meaning if you're in a college classroom, than it does if
>> you're
>> in a muslim village.   Because the cultural expectations and definitions
>> differ so broadly, from person to person (especially in this digitally
>> fragmented age) that misunderstandings and misinterpretations occur,
>> which
>> are then construed as "mistakes".
>
> Dan:
> Yes but we are in a forum devoted to the work of Robert Pirsig,
> specifically Lila. The way I see it, if someone wishes to expand that
> to include other authors like William James, Josiah Royce, etc., it is
> up to them to to full elucidate those connections. It isn't my
> intention to deny those relationships so much as it is to illuminate
> what the MOQ states, plain and simple. As you say, we have a wealth of
> information on hand to back up those claims, to throw water on the
> commonly held mistakes that continually crop up here year after year,
> but most people caught up in that misinterpretation refuse to
> acknowledge they are mistaken. Instead, they keep on spouting the same
> inane remarks over and over until people get pissed off about it.
>

Jc:  hmmm.  It sounds like you've got quite a quandry too.  The only
true orthodoxy is silence.  Neti-neti anyone?

Your advice sorta contradicts itself.  On the one hand, you challenge
me to elucidate my connections, which I have been trying to do, and on
the other imply I should keep quiet!

Well, no, that's not right.  You're just recounting the history that
this group carries with it and I get your point.

I'd like to hear your response to  Pirsig's willingness to find
congruence in other writers,  and consider the question if it's a
valid enterprise then, to explore more of what he found exactly in
James, that he considered so good.

thanks for the convo, Dan.

John

>>
>>
>>
>>> Dan:
>>> I'd say pragmatism (a set of intellectual patterns) was born of social
>>> values. If that is what you're saying, then we agree.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  Well, this might seem heretical to you, but all intellectual
>> patterns
>> are born of social values.  The old social double-bind, which a Zen
>> master
>> uses to force his pupil to make an upward leap, or just a very
>> frustrated,
>> very bright kid who gets hung up on an idea that puts him into conflict
>> with authority.  Great Ideas are  born of  great social conflict.  If
>> science didn't have peer review, and social competition, it would fall
>> apart.
>
> Dan:
> Why would that seem heretical to me?
>
>>
>> Dan:
>>> Well, yeah. That's pretty much what I do... what we all do. Only a few
>>> of us are more blatant about it than others. But how does lying to
>>> each other bring about a transition to a higher state of
>>> consciousness?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jc:  I don't know if it's possible to express yourself without lying,
>> just
>> a little bit.  We lie to ourselves, more than anybody tho so, instant
>> karma.
>>
>> But I think I probably am more honest in dialogue, written dialogue like
>> this, than I am in any other venue.    I perceive a commonality of value,
>> maybe.  Or it's just something that has taken a lot of time.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dan:
>>> So you're saying because you get a rise out of dmb you continue to
>>> push the idea of the absolute... is that right?
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  No.  I really think Royce's use of the term blocked us from
>> understanding him sooner.  It certainly blocked James, in their
>> communication.
>> I think intellectual assessment should rise above petty ego competitions
>> or
>> rivalries.  I think getting into the meat of a definition to understand
>> what an author means
>> by a term is a good thing to do, in a metaphysical discussion.  I think
>> allowing one's prejudice to blind one to possibilities of harmonizing
>> Pirsig with other great thinkers, is a shame, really and would be glad if
>> I
>> could offer a convincing demonstration.
>>
>>   Pirsig's own words, equate the term absolute with quality.  He says
>> "synonym."  It's no big leap on my part alone!
>
> Dan:
> I think it depends upon the context in which the term 'absolute' is
> used. To use it as Royce seems to do, in relationship to an omnipotent
> god, is not what the MOQ is all about.
>
>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Dan:
>>> >> You seem to be assuming language is a collection of intellectual
>>> >> patterns.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Jc:  No... I think intellectual patterns are collections (patterns) of
>>> > language.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Ah. That's an interesting take on things. My objection would be that
>>> often times I find I'm stuck on an idea (intellectual pattern) that
>>> will further my writings (language). After a multitude of efforts at
>>> breaking through the barrier, after exhausting myriad possibilities
>>> yet finding no satisfactory answer, I give up.
>>>
>>> I take a break. Maybe I'll go to my day job and perform some sort of
>>> meaningless and menial manual labor. Maybe I'll take a run. Maybe I'll
>>> sit in zazen for a while. All of a sudden, the solution appears,
>>> seemingly out of nowhere. It isn't that I'm talking to myself... that
>>> eternal internal dialogue that goes on inside my head. Rather, I've
>>> quit talking to myself. In doing so, the ideas prowling around the
>>> periphery of my consciousness have an opportunity to make themselves
>>> known.
>>>
>>> So no, I'd have to disagree with you. Language might be (in part)
>>> composed of intellectual patterns, but intellectual patterns are not
>>> to be equated with language.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  What is an idea, apart from words?  Sit in zazen with that for a
>> while
>> and get back to me.
>
> Dan:
> Cute play on words. Anyway...
>
>
>>>> Dan:
>>>> I think what's being said in the quotes you offer would make much
>>>> better sense framed within the hierarchy of the MOQ.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jc:  Dan!  You've become a dogmatist!  You sound just like people in
>>> church who argue against the points I make to them, " I think what's
>>> being said in the quotes you offer would make much
>>>  better sense framed within the hierarchy of the Bible."
>>
>> Dan:
>>> Take for example this sentence from the quote you offered:
>>>
>>> "The body not only eats, excretes, copulates, but it breathes as well,
>>> and this breathing is a bridging into the thinking and feeling that it
>>> also does."
>>>
>>> Doesn't the MOQ with its four levels offer a more expansive point of
>>> view? For one thing, the author is completely disregarding cultural
>>> influences.
>>
>>
>> Jc:  No, I think he's going a bit deeper and describing how cultural
>> influences are formed.  I am willing to go into this more deeply with
>> you,
>> but for now I'm constrained by time.
>
> Dan:
> In other words, forgetaboutit.
>
>>
>> dan:
>>
>>
>>> The jump is made directly from biological breathing to
>>> thinking... to intellectualizing. This is of course the common way of
>>> categorizing such things
>>
>>
>> Jc:  !.  I guess it depends upon which commons you frequent.  It is
>> certain
>> in tune with the Buddhist view, that is for certain.
>
> Dan:
> Really? How so?
>
>> Dan:
>>
>>
>>> so I can't blame the author. But, and I say
>>> it again, the MOQ offers us a better hierarchy in which to frame such
>>> statements. I see nothing dogmatic about that.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jc:  As any tool, it depends largely upon the user.  You can, for
>> instance,
>> use the MoQ to denigrate "lower" social orders such as the Muslims (or
>> the
>> Indians) with ego-centric white intellectual prowess, but I don't see
>> anything better about that hierarchy.  In fact, as a whole, I find
>> hierarchical thinking to be facile and bankrupt.  I realize that the MoQ
>> has been presented as hierarchical, but I believe the proper
>> understanding
>> of that hierarchy has been lacking.  It's led us to an anthropocentric
>> stance, which cannot withstand the slightest critical inspection.
>
> Dan:
> So you throw out the four levels without ever forming a proper
> understanding with them?
>
>
>>> >JC:
>>> > But I do basically agree with you.  It's just that as I'm reading, I'm
>>> > making an internal interpretation into the vocabulary of the MoQ and
>>> > I'm swelling up with happiness - it fits!  It all fits.  This was
>>> > Pirsig's reaction when he re-read James, in his more mature
>>> > reflections and he saw how it all dove-tailed.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> To a point, yes. But if I'm not mistaken, Robert Pirsig was reading
>>> James after he developed the MOQ. And I'm pretty sure he offered the
>>> same advice that I did... that the writings of James would make more
>>> sense seen through the lens of the MOQ.
>>>
>>>
>> Jc:  of course!  James was writing to a 19th century audience, and
>> Pirsig,
>> a 20th.  Different styles completely.  And yet, a very similar message,
>> no?
>>
>> "For William James this division (subject/object)  is artificial and
>> stultifying. As we saw, all meaning and truth are a species of goodness,
>> and this is the fruitful building out of the past into the present and
>> future. Meaning-making and truth are essential features of being vitally
>> alive and centered, of fully being, and philosophy is meant to nurture
>> and
>> feed us ecstatic body-minds. "
>>
>> ibid:)
>
> Dan:
> My reading of James is admittedly limited. Pretty dry stuff, that. So
> I'm probably not the best judge.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> >JC:
>>> > That's because there is a certain "perennial-ness" to the Good.  It
>>> > pops up, unexpectedly.  DQ is always a surprise.  Otherwise it'd be
>>> > just good ole SQ.
>>>
>>> Dan:
>>> Everything we see and know is static quality. Even the surprise of
>>> Dynamic Quality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Jc:  Interesting take.  I hadn't thought of it that way.  I find I am
>> thinking of the DQ/SQ split, these days, more in terms of it as a
>> time-process.
>>
>> All past is SQ.
>
> Dan:
> Everything we know is static quality.
>
> JC:
>> That was what Royce meant by "Absolute".  The past is
>> absolute.
>
> Dan:
> Not at all. The past is in constant flux. Every time new ideas arise
> the past changes to suit them.
>
> JC:
>> But the past is not all there is.  There is also the future, and
>> our ideas about the future can influence our present actions so as to
>> achieve or realize, if not our ideal, at least something "different".
>> What
>> occurs to me, is that we conceptualize all wrongly.  The past doesn't
>> "cause" the future, the future causes the past!
>
> Dan:
> In the MOQ, everything begins with experience. The past and the future
> are static quality representations, not objective realities.
>
>>JC:
>> It's an amazing thought.  I have to sit with it a bit, myself.  I don't
>> know what "zazen" is, really, but sitting still with big ideas seems
>> about
>> right to me.
>
> Dan:
> I don't know what zazen is either. But I do know it isn't about ideas,
> though great insights can and do arise in response to the stilling of
> the internal discursive dialogue.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Dan
>
> http://www.danglover.com
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>


-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."