Hi,
I subscribed to MOQ-discussion, when I found it, because ZAMM, and even more so
Lila, were probably the two books that started me thinking. Unfortunately, I
read them quite a long time ago, and in the while, I got lots of other related
ideas elsewhere (say, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Taoism, and so on). Thus, I am a
bit afraid of mixing up terminology as well as incurring in some big mistake as
for what Pirsig's stated. Also, I could be expressing obvious concepts in what
follows. Please forgive me if this happens... but even better, if you can help
me see my mistakes, you can help me get in pace with the MOQ-discuss, which I
would be very happy about. Also, forgive my english - I am italian, and really
do my best to be understandable at all.
I have read this from elephant:
> On the one hand there is mystic reality: northrop's aesthetic continuum that
> Phaedrus speaks of, all undivided and
> dynamic and infinte and real. On the other hand we have language, a clumsy
> dichotomising dividing thing that cuts the world up and gives names to all the
> parts... the two can never really meet head on
This touches issues that are quintessential to my interests. Most of my current
ideas stem from the discrete-language vs continuous-reality mismatch. Taoists of
course begin with this, as "The Tao that can be spoken about is not the True
Tao", and Wittgenstein also more or less agreed: besides more famous quotes,
there is one where he states that "aestethics is the limit of language" (or it
was, maybe, ethics, but are they different after all?).
Witt's "limit" concept is interesting, because it extends the
discrete/continuous mathematical metaphor, and the extension seems to work: as
we (our culture, science, language) evolve, our "language" becomes a
progressively "better" approximation of reality. At the same time, the distance
between our linguistic representation of reality and reality itself is still, in
another sense, infinite: any sentence in an improved language is still subject
to cause errors without end if applied literally to reality. The gap between our
(linguistic/rational/...) representation of reality and reality itself can only
be bridged by "intuition", meditation, and other more or less mystical tools
that, in the first place, suppress our rationalizing, linguistic, logical mind
(together with the notion of "self", newtonian space/time, and other accessories
of rationality itself - see also Schopenhauer).
The purpose of metaphysics (which is a rational, logical device) is thus that of
providing better approximations. It does so by taking our view of reality and
revealing where it comes short (it necessarily does come short somewhere, due to
the mismatch mentioned above). Hopefully, the better our philosophy, the smaller
the gap that our mind (heart?) has to get over to "see" the truth - the Tao, DQ.
What consequences stem from the discrete vs continuous issue in everyday life?
Here is a situation that I think most of us experienced:
a). I am struck in a situation where I should take a decision, but cannot. I
spend days and nights reasoning about what to do, but reasoning does not solve
the problem - no matter how carefully and logically I consider the situation.
Then - out of this confusion, maybe desperation - *intuition* comes to me and
reveals that I must do X. I suddendly realize that of course X is the True Good
for me - as soon as I take this decision, I feel *happy* within all the
troubles. Nothing rational could help me or can support me in accepting this -
but I *know* its true. So I take the path X, and while I do, I think to myself
"there is not a single way I could explain why this is the good thing to do, but
I am as sure of this as I am sure to be alive". I somehow swear to myself to be
faithful to this decision. I also get the feeling that doing X somehow takes me
"over my boundaries", that in doing so, I am crossing Zarathustra's river, and
becoming a better "myrself".
b). Time passes. My original problem has gone, but decision X still influences
my life. I remember that I saw it as the perfect choice, and feel grateful to
have chosen to do it, but then, one day, I also feel that I have to change that
decision. I feel it just as strongly as I felt about choosing path X. Again, no
rational reason. Now the feeling I have is that holding onto X would be to
behave in a way that is "worse" than I really am (more limited, more mediocre,
more immature).
- What happens? You have a glimpse of DQ - and it's your intuition, it's a
feeling beyond language and beyond rational support. It points to a certain
decision. As soon as you get aware of it, you have translated the "message"
coming from the continuum into a discrete form. The translation comprises both
something really "new" to you and, although you cannot see it, a lot of the "old
you", a lot of what you aren't even aware of thinking/saying, the overall
framework of your language. You have changed that unspeakable "idea", coming
from DQ: you have restricted it, adding some of your personal limits (which of
course, you can't see). Sooner or later, you cross more boundaries. Your
language subtly changes in meaning, your map of the world changes, your idea of
yourself changes. Decision X, taken literally, becomes a relic, a cage. It was
good for you 4 years ago, but then, that was another person. From your current,
extended perspective, you can still be able to see that "for that person" it was
the better choice, but not for you now. You may feel affection for it (if it was
a decision that drastically improved your situation), but you realize that,
however good it was in the beginning, right now it has become a source of pain,
or otherwise something "bad". You leave it behind.
While these dynamics are trivial and almost anyone could agree that they're
common, just a few people realize that their source is in the gap between
language and reality. I think some could possibly feel very bad - get a nervous
breakdown? - seeing that they don't agree any more with what used to be
"certain". They will feel that if this is the case, then how could they feel
"certain" again about anything? Truth is - the good part of the certainty, you
are keeping with yourself. It's the bad part you are living behind. These ppl
would need a meta-certainty such as the MOQ and Taoism and similar thought
systems are trying to provide.
Also, I think that any means that help us leave language behind to see "what is
Good", here and now, for Me, should be widely taught, because unhappiness is
never caused by the world around you, only by your opinion about the world
itself.
Any comments whatsoever? :)
AS
--
Andrea Sosio
RIM/PSPM/PPITMN
Tel. (8)9006
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
