Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 31:36 — 29.0MB)
On Robert M. Pirsig's philosophical, autobiographical novel from 1974.
This is a short preview of our full-length, vintage episode, which you can purchase by itself, or get our whole catalog free, beamed to your mobile device, by becoming a PEL supporter: see partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.
What's the relationship between science and values? Pirsig thinks that modern rationality, by insisting on the fundamental distinction between objects (matter) and subjects (people), labels value judgments as irrational. Society therefore largely ignores aesthetic considerations in the buildings and machines that litter our landscape.
People rebel against this ugly commercialism by rejecting technology altogether, and Pirsig thinks this is a mistake. If we realize that value judgments (where we sense "Quality") are fundamentally a part of experience, that they drive what what we consider "rational" (e.g. a "good" scientific explanation) in the first place, then we can stop with the hippie rebellion and more sensibly and peacefully co-exist with technology. Though the book is not about historical Zen, it is about keeping centered, connected, and in the moment.
Featuring guest David Buchanan. Read more about the topic and get the book.
End song: "Freeway" by Mark Lint and Stevie P. Read about it.
Mary says
March 3, 2012 at 8:35 amIf James, Dewey, and Pirsig are all saying the same thing, why does Pirsig bother to say anything at all? It’s already been said and Pirsig brings nothing new to the table.
I don’t think this is your contention, and if it’s not, one has to address what separates the MoQ from these other systems.
What separates them is the rejection of subject-object dualism as a basis for reality. In all the systems you mention, what is not acknowledged is that the systems themselves are mired in the same subject-object dualism they purport to reject.
The “idea” of the MoQ or James or Dewey are examples of an individual (a subject) thinking about the external concept of the nature of reality (the object). This is a snake eating its tail. Pirsig recognizes this and draws on Eastern thought to transcend the problem, taking it out of the realm of subjects and objects and putting it on a higher plain he calls Quality.
According to Pirsig, the Quality nature of reality cannot be apprehended within subject-object dualism. Gaining this appreciation requires one to make a mind-blowing in and out turn of the metaphysical sock. This shift of perspective is so great that our everyday metaphysical assumptions that say we are separate from our environment must be overcome. You can certainly read in a SOMish way about the MoQ, this is how all of us were first introduced, but you will never be able to appreciate the magnitude of it until you are willing to let go of the SOM worldview. This is entirely analogous to how the Social Level comprehends the Intellectual today. At the Social, scientific discoveries that fail to support the tenants of the Social are argued away as belief. There is the argument that evolution is nothing more than an alternative belief system, or that global warming is nothing more than a political manipulation. People operating within the Intellectual Level, scientists, for instance, know these arguments are designed to capture the knowledge gained from direct observation and turn them into opinions. It appears that you are doing the same with the MoQ – attempting to force it into a metaphysical subject-object box it cannot fit into. I realize you may not agree with my analogy, but surely you must understand it.
The MoQ can be certainly discussed, as long as it is understood that all that discussion, all that “thinking itself” or “symbol manipulation” is just a subject-object approximation of something deeper which can never be completely captured in language. This is what Pirsig meant when he characterized the Intellectual Level as “thinking itself” or “symbol manipulation”. He said those things in light of full understanding that they are patterns of subject-object metaphysics.
pirsigfan says
March 3, 2012 at 9:12 amTest
Comments not showing after #93
Mark Linsenmayer says
March 3, 2012 at 9:42 amSeems to be working OK.
Dylan Casey says
March 3, 2012 at 5:48 pmThis is a test post.
Dylan Casey says
March 3, 2012 at 6:01 pmSorry for the technical difficulties. I sorted out the problem with the comment thread. This is longest thread of comments ever on PEL and we bumped up against one of the WordPress config parameters. I’ve reconfigured it to fix the problem.
Now, back to the currently running program…
pirsigfan says
March 3, 2012 at 6:10 pmThanks, Dylan. Would love for you to weigh in on process at one of the Pirsig or whitehead threads as your take is highly informed by the scientific roots that these men brought to their philosophy, esp W.
David Buchanan says
March 3, 2012 at 6:55 pmMary said to Dave, “In all the systems you mention, what is not acknowledged is that the systems themselves are mired in the same subject-object dualism they purport to reject”.
Maybe you’d like to hear from some other pragmatists on the topic of SOM. John Stuhr is the Editor of “Pragmatism and Classical American Philosophy: Essential Readings and Interpretive Essays. (Oxford University Press, 2000.) He says, “In beginning to understand his view, it cannot be overemphasized that Dewey is not using the word ‘experience’ in its conventional sense. For Dewey, experience is not to be understood in terms of the experiencing subject, or as the interaction of a subject and object that exist separate from their interaction. Instead, Dewey’s view is radically empirical” and “experience is an activity in which subject and object are unified and constituted as partial features and relations within this ingoing, unanalyzed unity” (PCAP 437).
Or, as Dewey himself explains SOM in “The Need for a Recovery of Philosophy”, “the characteristic feature of this prior notion is the assumption that experience centres in, or gathers about, or proceeds from a centre or subject which is outside the course of natural existence, and set over against it” (PCAP 449). This “prior notion” is what radical empiricism is rejecting. It is seen as a mistake and as the source of many fake problems in philosophy. As Stuhr puts it, “the error of materialists and idealists alike” is “the error of conferring existential status upon the products of reflection” (PCAP 437).
Or, as William James puts it in “A World of Pure Experience”, “the first great pitfall from which a radical standing by experience will save us is an artificial conception of the relations between knower and known. Throughout the history of philosophy the subject and its object have been treated as absolutely discontinuous entities” and their relations have “assumed a paradoxical character which all sorts of theories had to be invented to overcome” (PCAP 184).
“The second of James’ two main systems of philosophy, which he said was independent of pragmatism, was his radical empiricism. By this he meant that subjects and objects were not the starting point of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as ‘the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories’. In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot be either physical or psychical: It logically precedes this distinction.” (Pirsig 1991, 364-5)
There you have four different voices, two from a century ago and two from living thinkers. They are doing – right in front of your eyes – what you claim to be impossible. The textual evidence plainly shows that your claim is false. There are lots of other philosophers who reject SOM in ways that are a much less compatible with these radical empiricists but these examples should be more than enough to convince a reasonable person.
Burl says
March 4, 2012 at 7:46 am“There you have four… thinkers… doing – right in front of your eyes – what you claim to be impossible [i.e., philosophy not trapped in a S/O paradigm].”
The literature indicates Dewey’s metaphysical statements are not reliable inasmuch as he suspected it to be trancendental and thus unimportant. James corpus of studies in various interests of a psycho-philosoph character is generally held to be seminally insightful, but not thoroughly fleshed out (even he says so).
Dave, your citing of Pirsig interpreting James to argue against Mary and Bo about philosophers being stuck in S/O dualistic thinking, simply makes their point:
“[James’s radical empiricism] meant that subjects and objects were not the starting point of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as ‘the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories’. In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot be either physical or psychical: It logically precedes this distinction.” (Pirsig 1991, 364-5)
That’s a loaded but, alas, highly ambiguous string of symbols from Mr. P. Is James successful in denying S/O duality? In his famous James/Lange theory of emotion, which states that we do not feel fear of an aggressively approaching, bear and then run; rather, we observe-the-bear-and-flee. The experience, observe-the-bear-and-flee, has the affective tone of fear.
Yeah, you can (ambiguously) say the primary reality here is ‘a flux of life,’ but how can anyone (James included) deny that there is a predatory bear and a human prey. Remove either, and you lose the experience, The reality, experience, depends on a bear and a human for its explanation (cause), AND THEY ARE NOT POST-HOC CONCEPTS.
What is post-hoc, which was object, which subject, depends on whose asking, the bear or the human. From a third person POV, they are both objects. The interview – the analysis – certainly comes after the fact. This forensic of experience involves a myriad of S/O cause/effect abstracting patterns for figuring who, what, why, and how. This is Pirsig’s 4th level of SQ.
The big problem as I see it is that somebody needs to give an ontology of experience: What is experience?
James says it is ultimate reality – ‘the immediate flux of life’? Was there no reality before life? What is fluxing: the bear, the prey, the emotional interchange…? And what’s with the hint of time in ‘immediate?’ No similar allusion to space? Pirsig says “Pure experience cannot be either physical or psychical: It logically precedes this distinction.” So it would appear its attributes do not involve space, time, or affect – it’s all Quality, an indefinite monism with dual modes of stability and dynamism??? Is a dual monism logical? At least Pirsig assures us that logic shows that pure experience precedes logical distinction. (I somehow feel I am channeling Derrida.)
I do believe there are some S.O issues in both these thinkers. For panexperiential clarity, I point once again to the other white-pragmatist, Whitehead, for a robust ontology of experience as energy/affect.
David Buchanan says
March 4, 2012 at 5:33 pmIt seems pretty clear to me that you don’t find the evidence compelling because you don’t understand it. You think “they” have issues because you don’t understand the alternative they’re offering. Maybe you see that long series of questions as some kind of challenge, but I see it as a confession of your incomprehension. You simply deny what they assert and push back against it by reasserting the problem of SOM – emphatically and all in caps no less.
To you, this evidence is a “highly ambiguous string of symbols”? What’s unclear or equivocal? “Subjects and objects are not the starting points of reality. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts…”
It’s so simple that I hardly know how to unpack any further. SOM is the view that subjects and objects are primary, are the starting points of reality, that they are ontological categories. Our radical empiricist say they are not primary ontological realities but rather the products of experience, secondary concepts used to sort and organize experience.
You could read any of these guys and see for yourself. Until then, I think it’s not fair to be making big hairy claims about what they do and do not say. Even when the most relevant pieces of text are selected and presented, you still don’t see the point. C’mon, Burl. This is thee main idea and you’re totally lost. It’s pretty clear that you are in no position to criticize these radical empiricists or even compare their views to anything.
Burl says
March 4, 2012 at 7:07 pmI apologize, David. I reread what I so enthusiasmos-tically posted EARLY this morning. My juices were flowing and I thought (wrongly) the grammar was too.
I caught it this afternoon, and made corrections at the same time you posted your reply.
I harbor no bad feelings towards you. Your ideas are well explicated in your fine prose.
Please reread my corrected post and see if we are closer.
Bodvar Skutvik says
March 5, 2012 at 2:19 amBurl, Dave, Mary.(Tim please go away)
No need to amend what you read the other day Burl, it was clear enough. Dave’s prose is splendid as always, it just conveys some half-baked version of the MOQ. What struck me most with Burl’s was this:
“This forensic of experience involves a myriad of S/O cause/effect abstracting patterns for figuring who, what, why, and how. This is Pirsig´s 4th level of SQ.
As you know my contention is that Dave merely reiterates ZAMM where Phaedrus (first) discovered the 4th level (naturally because it was what – as SOM – tormented him, but now Dave presents this – um – partially examined MOQ – as the whole thing. Pirsig probably declared himself in agreement because James’ resembled his own in ZAMM, but in LILA inside the full-fledged MOQ it was disaster.
There was more by Burl:
“James says it is ultimate reality – `the immediate flux of life´? Was there no reality before life?”
This is also highly important. The MOQ says that the inorganic level is “the ultimate flux” (DQ’s) first creation and it’s no use to claim that it was Pirsig – as a human being – that created the MOQ and such the one and only level is MIND. This was what DMB flung back at me (after I had pointed out that the inorganic is the first level) he said that I had fallen victim for the dreaded “reification”, i.e. concretizing the “abstract” inorganic level. But abstract/concrete is SOM-as-intellect’s repertoire and does not apply inside the MOQ.
Dave’s deserves a separate post, but it can hardly be done better than May’s the other day
Bo
Tim says
March 4, 2012 at 4:48 pmAttn “P.E.L.” peeps,
My name is Tim (Rappl). I have been schooling these “M.o.Q.”ers for roughly the past year, and it seems our little tiff, … rather, the players in this tiff, – mainly Bo (Skutvik), now, – are needing to find extra “outlet” for their “shame”. Bo is an old man, tryin’ to establish a legacy for himself before he die. I’m ‘a try to clean up his mess a bit, for Ya. And, as the prophet, Jay-Z, say, “naggas stuck on stupid.”: seriously, check out his song, “On to the next one” – see how much more baller this is than some stupidly “simple” “DQ”? But don’t let the thought of Jay as “caesar” distract You now 😉
I am a “successful” metaphysician. This is quite possible, and I can explain it quite well (there is still room for “betterness”, to be sure). But I’m having a hard time finding people who will, first, listen, and second, learn. Anyway, I can’t find more than a handful of men in the whole of history who have succeeded. But I do find about a handful, myself included. Failure is easy to detect; all failures, it turns out, can be classified as philosophic materialism. To be sure, this is – still – where science is making its home. Thee solution is I’dealism.
We can ask what is the significance of, I type, $_real_$? The essence of failure, of materialism, is belief that “real” can be “simple”. Real is not simple; it is inherently complex. Alternatively, since “simple” _cannot_ be True, as they live, the liars who faith/e simple metaphysics, do so by supplying “something else” – something else that they simply refuse to acknowledge, – no matter how many times you show them that that’s what they really are doing. Yada yada yada, the other way to reliably recognize failed metaphysicians is that they reveal, – pretty much at every step, – that they believe that they can, as it were, simply leave out things – other “I am”! – that don’t happen to suit their “taste”. “Real”, quite simply, has never been able to find way to “un-relate” “I am”.
I’dealism, in short, then:
Real…???
Actually, let me make sure you know, from the outset, that, for instance, Einstein, when he published his theory of special relativity some 100 years ago, and which underpinning Feynman also elucidated, when he talked about the mere tool of “counting” (to his cal tech students, in the chapter from his “lectures on physics” entitled, yes, {as I recall, hmmm} “algebra”!) … Einstein “started in the middle”. He took for granted all sorts of necessary (I’deal) complexity. For but one example, a working clock. But how does an I’deal clock actually “work”? Science might be able to answer this very soon, but they haven’t yet. And, actually, I have offered that thee big question needing to be answered before we obtain thee physic: account for I’deal change? (Thermodynamics takes an “inversion”! 🙂 Another “layer” of symmetry in our “cake”. 😉 )
So… Thee “real” I’dea is necessarily complex.
It doesn’t take a genius physicist, not even a successful metaphysician to “tune” in. “Cake”, “complexity”, really is cake. It is what we do, for chrissakes! Thee I’dea, thee only fully real I’dea, is best said, I think: “I am”.
The whole of phenomena, like Jesus (the first successful human metaphysician) said, is as a body. Flesh. Kosmos. While the value of it is “decay”, it itself, the “system”, – and because “decay” is a really good idea, – is not a product of itself. The kosmos is, I say, a derivative representation. Merely phenomenal. But creation comes from “above”; it is superphenomenal.
Again, real is complex. The “superphenomenal” is the glory of I’dea. Each “quantum” of “I am” is noumenally equivalent, at least at “depth” (why we can have the MIND {soul} of God, at least at “depth”, a.k.a. “the gates of hell”, or whatever other analogy …). Every “I am” is a mentally potent “clock” who keeps his own “hours” (“hours” are just part of the inherently complex time-piece). Such information is totally proprietary. We have, then, incorruptible personality, and, free will.
I have touched on the phenomenal and the noumenal, but I must now get to, as Jesus called this aspect (~”I am: the way; the truth; the life”), “the Life”. “Spiritual” relations between ultimately noumenal “I am”. Jesus described this as “I in you; and you in me [to degree N, where N is the number of “I am”]”; I call it an I’deal fluid. Again, I am quite confident that science will “confirm” me before too too long.
The superphenomenal isn’t miraculous to the point of making un-real ideas real, but it certainly is more than there mere electromagnetic phenomena. We are, vis-à-vis the “treasure we have stored up for ourselves in heaven”, (superphenomenal) potent MINDS who have a say about when we use our potent “no” (/ “yes”), amongst other such “spiritually” relating “I am”. That is, I, as this greatest of I’deas, subjectify other “I am”, and objectify our relations. These relations are so complex and intertwined, that you can’t look to any one “thing” in phenomena to say, aha, that’s really … I am, my body, is no less than all the phenomena I can detect! (This is, clearly, not Pirsig’s SOM.) Phenomena area trustworthy derivative representation; and potent, willful, idea-creating “I am” “continuously” “gas this hoe” – ideation, self-limitation, observation, repeat.
Like I said… There have been very few successful metaphysicians in history. I count myself amongst God, Jesus (as represented by John the Gospeler), perhaps John the gospeler himself (though maybe not back then, pro’lly certainly by now), and George Holmes Howison (author of “the limits of evolution, and other essays, illustrating the metaphysical theory of personal idealism” {get the 1905 copy for the appendices [available at google books}}). I tell you this, now, because I want you to know that, the “spiritual” “game” being what it is, you pro’lly gonna have to find way to include these super-baller “I am” in your reality. Without too much fuss. “Like I said”, second thing, decent people who try to live moral lives, – and I say “decent” because I know that I have been so blessed, – end up “tuning” in to the same “station”. We pretty much agree. I am talking specifically about a number of music videos, the artists who created them, which I have highlighted – wonderful, open, honest — Godly Spirited —stories – for the LilaSquad… along the way.
One more thing, to be sure, Bo:
I nailed him to his cross but a few weeks ago. You know, I suppose, that he claims the solution to the likes of the mind/body problem is to say that there is some “level”, – somewhere, somehow, – and the 4th, no less!, which _is_ that “problem”. So, for him, it’s contained. For ever and ever. Some unknowable, indescribable, “the MoQ” is, then, thee solution. He’ll harp on about some “DQ/SQ” that he’ll never try to elucidate further, except to say that it is not an idea! Lol!!!
See this thread at the LilaSquad, scoll down to Feb 9:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/lilasquad/16J5-AXxA7k
I asked Bo, “so the MoQ is neither subjective nor objective, right? Also, it isn’t
even an idea, right?”
He answered, “That’s right, more questions?”
I then asked (same day), “is “the MoQ”, itself, “dynamic”? Or is it better to leave that word off too when “speaking of” the MoQ?”
On Feb 11, cropping my question, he replied:
[Tim.
You asked:
> is “the MoQ”, itself, “dynamic”?
No it is the DC/SQ reality that has swallowed the S/O one and made it
a subset of its own.
Next question!
Bo ]
Later that day, Feb 11, I replied to him, “whoa, nelly. Can I take it as “No. The MoQ, itself, is not dynamic.”? Or must I include your further ideation with that “no”?”
Hopefully you can see how hopeless is his position. That didn’t bother him though! His shit don’t stink, he think. Again, the answer is complexity. My squad be stuck, and I don’t know how to get them to open up.
Thanks for your time, (I’m tired, pro’lly won’t follow up much,)
Invitations,
Ballers ‘ould never worship any such “DQ”,
Tim
Tim says
March 4, 2012 at 8:18 pmto be sure,
living complexly…
one is a self-marriage, noumenally assertive, spiritually vulnerable/receptive. Real, i’deal, superphenomenal potential. Relating with other “I am”, i’deally/spiritually, is our highest faculty. Justice has $_real_$ meaning, for instance.
The hope is to “tame” our superphenomenal selves. Because the ability to _also_ play tamely with one another really opens up some great “doors”. You can’t “fake the funk”.
Mature and responsible society – across the board / “tie a yellow ribbon round the world” style – …
spendin’ cake could be real dope play.
In a populous earth, it seems no way around everyone recognizing the need to guarantee the savage necessities to all. Or, of course, we could just keep tramplin’ the cake, I guess. Gets real ugly out there ‘do. And, again, the former is way “free”.
Anyway, maybe enjoy this “prophesy”, – music video 🙂 , – from Nicki-Nicki (Minaj), “Moment 4 life”:
http://www.vevo.com/watch/nicki-minaj/moment-4-life-clean-version/USCMV1100001?recSrc=relB&source=watch
Tim
Tim says
March 4, 2012 at 8:27 pmto be sure once more,
when thinking superphenomenally, that is, i’deally, all of phenomena is just a ball (you know it gonna hit everyone when you kick it; every time you kick it). You give it, and take it, like a baller! The ball still be the same ball you been ballin with all along though. The game be the same game. Only, more skillz to be had: better relationships; particularly the distant ones. But not soo weird, afterall.
Tim
Tim says
March 4, 2012 at 8:30 pmmaybe if I suggest this one more gem I can feel relieved that I didn’t leave my shit too rank. Lupe Fiasco, “The show goes on”:
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 2:01 pmone more post?,
I neglected to give the metaphysicians’ answer: I am holds himself together through i’deal change.
Second, perhaps I was a bit too casual in talkin’ ’bout kinkin’ and being hit by “the ball”. There is no (phenomenal) thee ball. The ball I kick is proprietary to me (likewise the one that hits me), and it is not, precisely, the same ball when it his another (all other I am). The process be real ‘do. And, to be sure, that process is not-other than you! “Spirit”. “Flow”. Time be complex. (But niggas ‘ll, I spose, keep talkin’ as if there were only *an* “immediate” “flux”… stupid, simple, shit)
Third, – in play, – Bo, “who gon stop me, huh?” (You?! “DQ”?: please 😉 ) – See “Ye” and Jay, here:
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 3:06 pmMoses!,
hell yea! <— Baller alert!!!
I haven't really read the thread (I'm so sick of the MoQ by now), but I see above, from Feb 21, 7:23 p.m. (you still reading?), the likes of:
"In other words, Quality is indeed “whatever you like,” but it just so happens that a great deal of “whatever you like” is similar by virtue of all this shit we have in common." – love that you said "shit"!!!!!
and:
"Thus, Pirsig’s account of Quality may be correct in its Phenomenological role, but he is mistaken about the metaphysics and/or ontology–Quality does not deserve its own metaphysical category because it happens in the same category as the rest of the mind. In fact, Quality is just something the brain does for one aspect of the mind, so it doesn’t make sense to make it ontologically distinct from all of the other aspects of the mind."
Only real complaint I have is that your talk of "thee ball" – phenomena – is (still) too restrictive. As regards your "aspect" (propa!: same word I too have used, many times) "the ball", you be the whole (of your very own!) "the ball".
A quantum of i'dea, I am, is noumenal/spiritualphenomenal. A la "parallel" "universes" harmonizing. We "observe" a self-limited derivative representation of a (our) superphenomenal "holographic". Law of $_real_$, – coupled with the fact that we are not more complex than we are, – means we can't find way to un-relate "I am". I'deal change operates by faith/e. Yet?/never? to "fail"?
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 3:13 pmMoses, to be sure,
faith/e is thee process, and must be, because of individual propriety. We can’t even know the whole of our proprietary self, how could we concretize another? (except that we do “it” back and forth, relating together, baller style 🙂 )
Listen to when Young Jeezy says, vis-a-vis “why you wann’a count my money?”, “You cain’t ‘do!”.
Akon, Young Jeezy, Lil Wayne (again, speaking the Truth well enough that they shine like baller prophets), “I’m so paid”:
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 3:39 pmAll,
since I have given so many music videos already, let me also, at least, put the stories on a “good” footing.
I’ve called this music video “spiritual milk” before. “I am in love; with what we are; … and I am; I am star-struck; with ev’ry part; of this whole story.”: “animal”, Ke$ha.
What I might? call a “spiritual womb”, this post from the LS offers five music videos celebrating the nature of “I am”:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/lilasquad/14_LV6DHRkk
“spiritual meat”? I think I wait here,
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 3:59 pmP.S.,
I “roc” this too, when … Demi Lovato, “Skyscraper”:
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 4:05 pmBo,
wow! These ballers can really kick a whole story, can’t they?
Tim
Tim says
March 5, 2012 at 4:47 pmI see I forgot the link to Ke$ha’s “Animal”:
Tim
Tim Rappl says
April 10, 2014 at 9:53 amI repent of my earlier paucity: gladly.
Burl says
March 4, 2012 at 6:18 pmClarification of grammar and style in previous post of early this morning (Mark, you can delete the other).
Dave said: “There you have four… thinkers… doing – right in front of your eyes – what you claim to be impossible [i.e., philosophy not trapped in a S/O paradigm].”
Dave: The literature indicates Dewey’s metaphysical statements are not reliable inasmuch as he thought it too abstract to be valid. James’s corpus of studies in various areas of psych and phil is generally held to be seminally insightful, but often not thoroughly fleshed out (even he says so).
The quote of Pirsig on James to argue against Mary and Bo, who say with Pirsig, ‘philosophers are stuck in S/O dualistic thinking,’ simply makes their point:
“[James’s radical empiricism] meant that subjects and objects were not the starting point of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as ‘the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories’. In this basic flux of experience, the distinctions of reflective thought, such as those between consciousness and content, subject and object, mind and matter, have not yet emerged in the forms which we make them. Pure experience cannot be either physical or psychical: It logically precedes this distinction.” (Pirsig 1991, 364-5)
That’s a loaded but ambiguous string of symbols from our Mr. P.
Is James successful in avoiding S/O duality? In his famous James/Lange theory of emotion, for instance, he says that we do not feel fear of an aggressively approaching bear and then run. Rather, we observe-the-bear-and-run, and this experience, observe-the-bear-and-run, itself has the affective tone of fear.
James says the primary reality here is ‘immediate flux of life,’ but how can one deny that there is, first, a bear and a human? Remove either, and there wouldn’t have been the experience.
The real experience had its genesis in the chance interaction of a bear with a human, which are not post-hoc concepts.
What is decided post-hoc (i.e., which was object and which was subject), depends on who is asking: the bear or the human. And, further, from a third person POV, they are BOTH objects. In a kind of ‘follow-up interview after the event’ – the analysis and other forensics of experience – we get our a myriad of S/O cause/effect patterns useful for figuring ‘who, what, why, and how.’
This is Pirsig’s 4th level of SQ.
Dave, Mary, and Bo:
The big problem as I see it is that somebody needs to give a solid ontology of experience: What is experience?
James says it is ultimate reality – ‘the immediate flux of life’?
Was there no reality before life? What is flux, and what is fluxing – the bear, the prey, the emotional interchange…? And what’s with the hint of time in ‘immediate?’ Is there also similar allusion to space?
Pirsig says: “Pure experience cannot be either physical or psychical: It logically precedes this distinction.”
So it would appear experience’s attributes do not involve space, time, or affect – it’s all Quality, which we Pirsig folk know to be an indefinite monism with dual modes of presence – stability and dynamism (???). Is such a dual monism logical? How can logic determine that an indeterminate Quality precedes, follows, or anything else about it? Logic is predicate/object.
There definitely are S/O issues prevalent in both these thinkers, and for my money, I recommend you try the other white-pragmatist, Whitehead, for a robust ontology of experience as energy/affect. I love P, but respect the depth of W much more.
Bodvar Skutvik says
March 6, 2012 at 3:09 amBurl, Dave, Mary, and interested parties.
I agree with Burl in a general way, but as always I get a sinking feeling when other philosophers are introduced as a being on par with Pirsig. In my opinion Immanuel Kant was the last word on the S/O (mind/matter) issue, after him everyone believed that the schism and the riddles it created is something built into existence that we better learn to live with, thus post-Kantian philosophy took SOM for granted.
Until Pirsig (as Phaedrus) performed his break with SOM. This was however nipped in the bud by SOM’s immune system and the chastised Pirsig recanted by modifying Phaedrus’ original MOQ by his diagram-drawing . A motorbike remains whole regardless of theoretical divisions and he made Quality-as-Reality an “MC” with dynamic/static its first THEORETICAL split. But this is all wrong, Quality-as-Reality is not divided along SOM’s theory/practice line, rather it’s seen as has having spawned static levels and NB!!!! no Quality remains after this operation .
But this remaining Quality – more dynamic than DQ – has resulted in the nonsensical “Quality/MOQ” meta-metaphysics (I call) that has haunted the MOQ since its emergence. I don’t know if David care much for these fundamental issues, he always zooms in on the part of LILA where Pirsig declares the likeness between James’ and himself possibly because Pirsig so badly needed an ally or – most possible – because he had given up on the MOQ from the beginning of LILA – it was just another “menu”. However I’ve discovered that David has performed a trick that he hopes will go unnoticed
LILA: “In his last unfinished work, Some Problems of Philosophy, James had condensed this description to a single sentence: “There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.” Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phædrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality. What the Metaphysics of Quality adds to James’ pragmatism and his radical empiricism is the idea that the primal reality from which subjects and objects spring is value”.
See, Pirsig says that James has used the same words for the basic subdivision as the MOQ, and he means DYNAMIC and STATIC, not REALITY vs CONCEPTS but Pirsig was not careful enough to distance himself from the latter and now that Dave has hijacked this for his own Jamesian travesty. Pirsig doesn’t care about the MOQ – it’s just another “menu” in his view – and lets this butchering of his great work pass by.
I won’t involve myself about James, Dewey or Sthur, Dave is of course right in there being scores of thinkers who lament SOM and point to it being untenable. But as Mary says, if these these thinkers says the same as Pirsig why did he claim:
(ZAMM page 231) “And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two”.
No, no one anticipated MOQ. James came close, but got lost with his concepts (language) as the “static” part of existence. Why Pirsig let himself be drawn into the Jamesian blind alley Goodness knows.
Bo
Tim says
March 6, 2012 at 1:34 pmBo,
Howison is a post-Kant success story. I’ve been – adamantly – trying to get you merely to read him for a year now. But you keep putting your own balls on your tee and hitting dribblers never even make it back to the “pitcher”.
Tim
Burl says
March 6, 2012 at 4:37 pmBo
What are your thoughts on the Quality as Tao in ZAMM?
Bodvar Skutvik says
March 8, 2012 at 4:00 amHi Burl
You said:
“What are your thoughts on the Quality as Tao in ZAMM?”
First of all a deep sigh: There ought to be a “ZAMM in a MOQ light” handbook, but for some reason Pirsig have refrained from such a venture and so have the MOQ scholars, obviously because it would force the “strong interpretation” on them, and that must not happen.
In ZAMM it’s the author who tells about Phaedrus and this Author/Phaedrus distinction is important because a few pages ahead of this the author had drawn diagrams of the SOM and Quality realities and this differs from Phaedrus insight:
(ZAMM page 246 in my edition)
“He read: The quality that can be defined is not the Absolute Quality. That was what he had said. The names that can be given it are not Absolute names. It is the origin of heaven and earth. When named it is the mother of all things — . Exactly. Quality [romantic Quality] and its manifestations [classic Quality] are in their nature the same. It is given different names [subjects and objects] when it becomes classically manifest.”
(NB! I skip “Romantic/Classic” for Dynamic/Static” and sort of anticipate the full-fledged MOQ)
See, Absolute Quality is the Dynamic part that has spawned the Static part (here “heaven and earth”, the levels in the MOQ) while in the diagram it looks as if Quality has spawned the DQ/SQ configuration. And this has grave consequences for the understanding of the MOQ
most obvious in Pirsig’s below.
(“A Summary” 2005)
“The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like the rest of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn’t change from day to day, although the world it talks about does.”
What utter nonsense! The MOQ says that the DQ is realitys dynamic aspect! Full stop! What more can he ask? But this looks like a childish effort to “outwit” language, to make it look like something can be conveyed without COMMUNICATION. Lower down in the “Summary” he speaks about the famous “moon and finger” example, but also this is some kind of communication – “body language”.
The above by Pirsig creates a “Quality/MOQ” meta-metaphysics (I call) makes the MOQ nil and void. I often wonder about David Buchanan, but even more I wonder about Pirsig, he’s like a pioneer trying to hide the path (out of SOM) he found …. so well that one has to be a Davy Crockett to rediscover it.
Back to you question: Yes, I believe the Oriental “Tao” is MOQ’s DQ, but I also believe that the MOQ is a better “Taoism” for the West because of our difficulty with Eastern mysticism.
Sincerely
Bo
Tim says
March 7, 2012 at 4:49 pmah’ …
here’s one cut$ of “spiritual meat” I’m comfortable sharin’ with y’all now:
Diddy – Dirty Money – “coming home”, ft. Skylar Gray:
Tim
Burl says
March 8, 2012 at 5:07 amI now am re-convinced this is true. Furthermore, I have come to an insight of a far more novel nature while pressing David on the ontology of James’s pure experience (which he and Pirsig hold equal to Quality):
Pirsig and David know they are talking to Westerners strictly about an Eastern concept, but coyly, they scarcely admit this is so. For instance, I went back and listened to the Episode 50 podcast for a third time, and this point was not at all seriously discussed.
I know enough about Eastern thought to know that Western philosophical concepts do not work in getting at Tao. David provided a lengthy comment to me to explain the ontology of pure experience, without bringing up Tao at all (quoted below).
In a flash, it dawned upon me that he was repeating over and over and over that the words we say to describe pure experience cannot get at the nature of pure experience. No ontology exists.
That’s it, the game is over. Let’s wrap up our Pirsig and James literature and head to China for further enlightenment. For Mark, Dylan, Deth, and others here at PEL, this is the simple reason we’ve all had trouble with this material.
Pirsig could have saved his followers a lot of trouble with a simple message “Go to Tao.”
Bodvar Skutvik says
March 9, 2012 at 2:33 amHi Burl
You said: “I now am re-convinced this is true. Furthermore, I have come to an insight of a far more novel nature while pressing David on the ontology of James?s pure experience (which he and Pirsig hold equal to Quality)”
Good, you are now convinced that MOQ’s Dynamic Quality matches Tao, then we can drop further discussion about it. But a lot can be said about Static Quality and that’s the reason for my assertion that the MOQ is a better Taoism than the Oriental article. Nothing matches the static quality. To say that it is “the fountainhead of all things” is correct but a bit vague. ᾕ
David may not have talked about DQ-as-Tao in the podcast. Presenting an uprooting of our metaphysical foundations can’t be done in such a format. However, quoting from your quoting Dave:
“The Stanford encyclopedia puts it this way: “James’s fundamental idea is that mind and matter are both aspects of, or structures formed from, a more fundamental stuff — pure experience — that (despite being called “experience”) is neither mental nor physical”
This Jamesian stuff equals ZAMM’s proto-moq “Pre-intellectual/Intellectual” where the last part is subjects & objects (mind & matter) and I suspect that young P. didn’t know about James or this would have struck him. But OK, Pirsig’s full-fledged MOQ surpasses James … had he just kept the “intellectual= S/O” at the 4th level everything would have been fine, but as everyone knows it came out more like “Mind” and in a metaphysics that rejects Mind/Matter as existence’s fundamental dualism it’s poison.
Anyway in the MOQ there are 3 levels before the intellectual, namely the inorganic, the biological and the social, and all are out of Pure Experience, DQ or Tao.
Sincerely
Bo
Bodvar Skutvik says
March 13, 2012 at 4:56 amHi PEL
Looks like everyone has dropped out of the discussion. That’s another MOQ quality, it’s a break with Western philosophy’s SOM premises that has been going since the term was coined. This makes MOQ a conversation killer, unless one adopts it’s “weak interpretation” (David Buchanan) which makes it another academical dee-da-dum. Why I use the weak/strong term is its likeness with Quantum Physics which for a long time was tried kept inside the Newton Physics. The most prominent person here was Albert Einstein who insisted that QP’s strange implications were due to som “hidden parameters” if these were found it would become all rational. He worked – along with Rosen and Podolsky – a thought experiment that would prove its rationality. This experiment was made practical back in the eighties and carried out by one Alain Aspect and it disproved Einstein. QP is just as weird as Schrodinger’s Cat example tries to convey. However the Western mind is so deeply SOM-entrenched that QP’s strong outcome is tried incorporated in its S/O matrix and the “weak interpretation” emerges. It says that the human mind (subject) determines the experiment’s outcome.
Regarding the MOQ, it’s a break with the SOM which is behind the mentioned Quantum Quandary but SOM’s tentacles are just as tough om the metaphysical plane as on the physical, and the MOQ is tried kept inside its premises and this “weak interpretation” presents the MOQ as a subjective (idealist) philosophy. David Buchanan looks my scapegoat, but the latter-day Pirsig seems to have got cold feet and have backed away from his younger self’s original “strong interpretation”. And everything hinges on the 4th static – intellectual – level that young Pirsig said was the present SOM. The ramifications of this is (no adjective really covers it) the whole academy juggernaut, all S/O offshoots (mind/matter, psychic/physical, mental/physical, culture/ nature …etc) and millions of philosophers and scientists trying to find the interaction/interface between these dualisms have not succeeded BECAUSE THE PREMISE CREATING THEM IS FALSE. The S/O is not reality’s ground …. Dynamic/Static Quality is!!!!
As said even Pirsig backed off from this original interpretation and consequently his explanations of how the MOQ solves SOM’s paradoxes are awkward and useless. There is really just one paradox (all other are dreived from it) the Mind/Matterr one and the obvious resolution is that it is Intellect’s static value and as such confined to the 4th level. This is really a dissolution a showing that the premises that created it is flawed. Much the same way that Newton Physics dissolved Classic Physic’s (Greek’s) famous paradoxes. They were not resolved but dissolved in light of the new premise. Instead Pirsig involves himself in a tedious explanation of how (in his view) the biological and social levels are bridges between the inorganic (here matter) and the intellectual (here mind) and messes the MOQ thoroughly up. There are lots and lots of issues where the weak interpretation messes up the MOQ, but enough for now.
Sincerely
Bo
Mark Linsenmayer says
March 13, 2012 at 8:10 amThanks, Bo!
Frank callo says
March 13, 2012 at 8:32 amI too read the audio book last year on a 21 hour bus trip to the city of my birth (Knoxville back to Philadelphia). What I saw in it was an attempt to merge theory with practice. It reminded me of this story from Chaung Tzu;
Cook Ting was cutting up an ox for Lord Wen-hui.2 At every touch of his hand, every heave of his shoulder, every move of his feet, every thrust of his knee – zip! zoop! He slithered the knife along with a zing, and all was in perfect rhythm, as though he were performing the dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping time to the Ching-shou music.3
“Ah, this is marvelous!” said Lord Wen-hui. “Imagine skill reaching such heights!”
Cook Ting laid down his knife and replied, “What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now – now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and follow things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.
“A good cook changes his knife once a year-because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month-because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room – more than enough for the blade to play about it. That’s why after nineteen years the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone.
“However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until – flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.” 4
“Excellent!” said Lord Wen-hui. “I have heard the words of Cook Ting and learned how to care for life!”
Me again here. As an interesting parenthetic aside, t “Ting” is a ritual caldron on which the “laws of the land” are inscribed. It is used in banquets and religious rituals to serve food but as a symbol (in the I Ching) it stands for cultivation of self, especially in terms of finding the “ground of being” in what ever work you do (my son, who is an aspiring chef, had the hexagram of the Ting tatooed on his arm along with a cook pot and ladle for his 18th birthday).
Anyway, back to Persig. I almost felt that the narrative almost served as a “mere” vehicle for the philosophy (kind of like a plot serves a porn or horror movie). Having said that, he did an admirable job weaving some pretty esoteric stuff into something fairly readable. It was a WHOLE lot more fun to read than Aristotle’s metaphysics.
Thanks for this pod cast, it was fun thinking about this book again on the year anniversary of reading it.
Mark Linsenmayer says
March 13, 2012 at 9:29 amThat’s a great parallel, Frank (and from my favorite Eastern philosophy book!).
I don’t know if this reference will mean anything to most readers of this blog, but I’m also seeing that story from the Chuang Tzu very directly in Phillip Pullman’s “The Subtle Knife.” I already knew that he was keenly aware of the sort of relaxed concentration state associated with Buddhist mindfulness… his characters in that series (The Golden Compass one) have to assume this stance for a variety of purposes, and one of them even consults the I Ching a few times, but I hadn’t previously noted the exact point of contact with this story: a knife that comes to a point of no thickness and finds the spaces between the joints of reality.
I recommend the series highly for people who listen to audiobooks in cars with their kids a lot; there are lots of bits snatched from philosophical and theological history in it.
Frank callo says
March 13, 2012 at 9:41 amMe again. At just about an hour into it, you guys start talking about “preference language”. does the electron really prefer to be at the lowest energy level, does the high performance motorcycle really prefer to operate at 100 mph. It strikes me as funny that scientists don’t mind this kind of language as long as we understand that it is “mere metaphor”.
When I was studying philosophy of mind I noted plenty of people, like the Churchlands, for example, who didn’t seem to have any problem saying that humans DO NOT really prefer ANYTHING, that this phenomenon we call preference is “merely” an emerent quality that comes from a number of completely deterministic events at the neurological level.
So why is it conventionally appropriate among some scientists to “reduce” humans to the status of non-sentient machinery but not so to elevate supposedly non-sentient entities to the level of sentience?
I am a gardener. When some plant is suffering-say, my zucchini have in infestation of squash vine bores-I say, and LITERRALLY mean, “the plant doesn’t LIKE that”. The plant tells me this by displaying certain “qualities” (there it is again) like the leaves turn yellow, the vines go black and soft at the base. How is this different from my grandaughter letting me know that she isn’t feeling well by flushing, running a fever, moaning etc.
I think that Persig is trying to overcome alienation as you guys alluded to. What he is doing is saying that there is a certain resonance between things that are functioning well (or not). In some way, by studying the idea of quality we start to find it in ourselves and can therefore recognize it elswhere. This is where the “Zen” comes in I think.
David Buchanan says
March 13, 2012 at 11:10 amI think Pirsig’s artful motorcycle mechanic is supposed to be operating with the same sort of masterful fluidity we see in the ox butcher. This “Zen” state of mind is roughly equivalent to “flow”, as psychologist Mihaly Czikszentmihalyi calls it. If he’s right, this has everything to do with happiness, which is no small thing. As the Open Culture post says, “his research shows [that] we tend to be most happy when we get immersed, almost lost in, being creative and performing at our best. It’s an ecstatic state that he calls “flow.””.
http://www.openculture.com/2008/10/creativity_flow_and_the_source_of_happiness.html
dmf says
March 13, 2012 at 12:29 pminterestingly Mihaly is a disciple of Dewey’s philosophy, this Mark Johnson article might be a good tie in for the upcoming buddhism show:
http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/SAAP/USC/DP17.html
David Buchanan says
March 13, 2012 at 3:41 pmYes, I think the original plan was to do Flanagan right after Pirsig. I suppose a lot of people would be surprised to know that there is quite a lot of overlap between those three classical pragmatists (James, Dewey and Pirsig) and Buddhism. In fact, at least one scholar (David Scott) has claimed unequivocally that the Buddha was both a pragmatist and a radical empiricists. Thanks, dmf. Don’t be too surprised if I quote Johnson’s paper.
Bodvar Skutvik says
March 14, 2012 at 12:26 pmPirsig’s art of motorcycle maintenance – when adjusting valves etc. may be like Frank Callo’s about the cook’s art of cutting up an ox, but I maintain that Pirsig’s motorcycle “metaphysics” is the cause of the great mistake that haunts the MOQ. You know a box on top called “Motorcycle” divided into two boxes below called “components” and “functions” and then some more splitting (page 92 in my book).
This is OK regarding mechanical devices, but not regarding reality the way the opening “no one can avoid metaphysics” is meant, because on page 243 he draws a similar diagram – first of SOM – with a top box called “Reality” that splits into subjective and objective boxes below. But this is not SOM, had there been a notion of a super-reality being arbitrarily divided it would have lost its sting. No, our experience is one subjective (mind) reality and one objective (matter) reality without any conceivable bridge between them.
Similarly – but with even worse consequence – is the MOQ diagram where he changes “Reality” in the top box to “Quality”, believing this to be sensation. But as I tried to show earlier, there was no metaphysics that said anything about what reality IS, so the Quality = Quality does not mean anything before the Dynamic/Static QUALITY replaces SOM. In that capacity it’s dynamite.
However Pirsig’s obsession remains with proving that Quality = Reality regardless of MOQ’s DQ/SQ configuration, for instance the Hot Stove demonstration in LILA. We all know that what makes us jump is the autonomous neural system and nothing wrong, but that’s PRE-BIOLOGICAL QUALITY while Pirsig’s makes it sound as if this is pre-intellectual. I suspect the H.S. to be an early Phaedrus insight resulting in his proto-moq which only had one “level” – intellect. But Pirsig couldn’t resist bringing it into LILA, and David Buchanan uncritically helps with the confusion.
Sincerely
Bo
LK says
May 5, 2012 at 2:30 pmHello all — sorry i found this late; first time visitor/poster. Great job with PEL; a nice addition to the philosophy blogosphere.
Like many others, i read ZAMM as a youth and it was an inspiration re philosophy and the intellectual life — “the high country of the mind” — and the search for “wisdom”. This was far more important to me than Pirsig’s philosophy (which, btw, i find completely unconvincing).
In the years since, i’ve remained curious: What other people/books are “like” Prisig/ZAMM? Or: Why aren’t there any!?
The ballpark i’m looking for would be something like:
[] a personal quest that’s “whole-person”, involving self-understanding/psychology, ethics, social/cultural issues, interpersonal relations, maybe “spiritual” levels (interpreted as religious/secular as you like), etc;
[] but which included “sophisticated” philosophical/intellectual reflection, eg referencing canonical philosophers; not eg wooly new age stuff;
[] yet also not the auto/biography of an academic philosopher (unless there’s lots of non-academic aspects to the story) — broader than that, general (highly) educated layperson kinda thing.
There are many possible ways all that could fit together, but one that’s of particular interest is: A person who did some maybe-lay-but-serious philosophizing about their worldview (maybe including justification, moral obligations, etc), before deciding how they should live — even though that life might not involve much more philosophizing. Thus they wouldn’t, if nonfictional, be known as a “philosopher”. Even more briefly: Philosophy as (one) path/stage/technique for creating a foundation for living (though not necessarily foundationalist philosophy!).
A couple (not-so-?)near misses pop to mind: Wittgenstein (eg the Monk bio), and Magee’s “Confessions of a Philosopher”. If you’ve read either those plus ZAMM, i assume you’ll understand why ZAMM fits much better. In fact, it’s still the best i’ve found. That’s why i’m asking here:
Is anyone aware of people/books like that?
Thanks so much,
LK
David Buchanan says
May 6, 2012 at 12:17 pmThomas Mann’s Nobel Prize-winning novel The Magic Mountain (1927) was recommended to me above all other books. (As a book about broad and substantial ideas.) It’s been sitting on my bookshelf for many years but I think I’m finally ready for it. It might be the kind of thing you’re looking for, LK.
LK says
May 9, 2012 at 11:48 amThanks so much for the suggestion. Yes, that’s on my list too, certainly a substantive philosophical novel. (I’m working my way through the lists at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophical_novels
, btw.) I’ll also continue my (meta)quest for more specifically ZAMMy works.
Best to you (all)!
Craig says
July 21, 2012 at 12:04 pmHey PEL,
I’ve just discovered this site and the podcasts, and I planned on going through each one in order, but as soon as I got through Wittgenstein I immediately had to jump to Pirsig to hear what parallels were made, and I was surprised to hear that the conversation really didn’t go there. Maybe that is because the podcast focused on ZMM, and not Lila, where Pirsig further works out the metaphysics. Anyway, I saw a lot of similarities between Wittgenstein’s fact based metaphysics and Pirsig’s MOQ, with both being a non-substance based metaphysics.
It looks like from the conversations here that there is a bit of interest in discussing the merits of MOQ beyond what is touched on in ZMM. Do you think you might return to Pirsig in another episode and perhaps dive deeper into the MOQ and how it compares to Wittgenstein’s metaphysics?
Seth Paskin says
July 21, 2012 at 6:37 pmCraig–
I think a return to Pirsig in the near future is not likely, though we may tackle process metaphysics via Whitehead. Unfortunately our ‘to do’ list is longer than our ability to tackle the texts and record episodes. Thanks for the feedback!
–seth
Craig says
July 23, 2012 at 8:30 amVery cool. I have never read Whitehead. So glad you have a long to do list; that just means that more awesome episodes are coming. Keep up the great work!
Tesshin says
January 20, 2013 at 9:46 pmIsn’t quality simply the interface between you/object? A high quality object (the sound of a well played Stratavari, the lines of a Triumph Bonneville) drags your attention into the present moment, stops the rumination of thought for a bit. From the other direction, your ability to put your whole unjudgemental attention in stillness on the present task at hand, (without being sidetracked by worry about the outcome) affects the quality of the experience for you/object. Allowing the situation at hand to be “enough” for the time being, increases quality.
The example you give of the BMW 800 sport bike is a great example of designers designing based on the race track (or perhaps the Autoban), ignoring regular driving experience, and the resulting disappointment of the buyer who ends up with the product.
Evan Hadkins says
February 3, 2015 at 5:24 amThere is an immediate all-at-onceness to our immediate experience. Which we can then reflect on.
However the immediate perception is educated. A musician trained on an instrument of in a particular kind of music will have a different immediate experience than a novice.
Here’s an experience of the arising of quality. Choose something to look at. Look closely at it. Look at what it surrounds and how it blocks some parts of stuff and whether it rests on stuff, bumps up against them and so on. Focus on the thing and then its surroundings and flow back and forth. Gradually you can notice that your vision is a horizontal oriented oval that comes right up against your eyeballs. At this point you may find that your vision has an aesthetic dimension. It has quality.
Mark Featherstone says
October 1, 2015 at 5:53 am“And really, the Quality he was talking about wasn’t classic Quality or romantic Quality. It was beyond both of them. And by God, it wasn’t subjective or objective either, it was beyond both of those categories. Actually this whole dilemma of subjectivity-objectivity, of mind-matter, with relationship to Quality was unfair. That mind-matter relationship has been an intellectual hang-up for centuries. They were just putting that hang-up on top of Quality to drag Quality down.” (Ch. 19, p. 229)
I think I have not had, at least in my adult life, an experience of reading a book such as I had with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (which I finally read when I was about 56); the experience was simply the stark contrast between my deep enjoyment of the first half and my utter exasperation with the second. I am nonetheless left with a fascination for the work and enjoyed the podcast (as always). However, the discussion, as good as it was, did nothing to convince me that Pirsig, or anyone else, has a consistent definition of quality, or, Quality. I’d like to suggest that Pirsig makes some fundamental conflations in terms (I know – he has an IQ of 170 and I’m almost certainly wrong). Here goes:
What Pirsig calls Quality is, I believe, better identified as order, no capital. There is order, or an increase in order, that we perceive in a well written vs a poorly written essay. This is ultimately because the universe is, at least in part, orderly, and would be so even if we were not there to perceive and describe its orderliness. This preexistence of order made our existence possible. It allowed us to evolve as creatures capable of thought, language, an ability (and survival need) to perceive order, to enjoy order and to impose order. It allowed us to develop motorcycles and to tune them, and to take satisfaction in tuning them. It is order, its discovery and creation, that we enjoy most in science, art and technology.
“How could he say whether Quality was mind or matter when there was no logical clarity as to what was mind and what was matter in the first place?” (Ch. 19, p. 229)
Statements like this just irritate me to no end. Mind is matter. Period. Don’t believe it? Put a brain in a blender and ask how much mind is left at the end of the puree cyle.
“And so: he rejected the left horn. Quality is not objective, he said. It doesn’t reside in the material world. Then: he rejected the right horn. Quality is not subjective, he said. It doesn’t reside merely in the mind. And finally: Phaedrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two. (Ch. 19, p. 229)
This is where I think Pirsig confuses something fundamental. I will use “order” where Pirsig uses “Quality”. Essentially, I believe he confuses the subjection perception or appreciation of order with its objective existence. It is only true to say that order is not objective if we are referring to our perception of order. Yes, our individual perception of order disappears when we do, and that is therefore subjective. Likewise, it is only true to say that order is not subjective if we grant that the universe would be orderly even if we were not there to give it the subjective label of orderly or assessment of orderliness, just as light coming through the sky would consist predominantly of a particular wavelength, even if we were not there to perceive and describe that light as blue or measure that wavelength. The confusion therefore arises by switching definitions of Quality/order from objective to subjective within the space of a breath. In this way, he sets up two straw men, knocks them down, and then says there must be a third entity, but it just ain’t so.
Wish I had the time to articulate this better, but I’ve got a day job.
Mark
dmf says
April 25, 2017 at 1:36 pmRIP
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-motorcycle-is-yourself-revisiting-zen-and-the-art-of-motorcycle-maintenance-1.2914205