METAPHYSICAL USER MANUALS (previously known as "inside and outside")
Hi Marco and Elephant
A LITTLE STORY
Once upon a time I bought a computer. I found the computer to be somewhat
easy to use, but occassionally I attempted to do complex things with it that
were not so straight forward and self evident. Luckily, the computer
included a manual of instructions. This manual was an integral part of the
product, especially when I needed to do advanced tasks.
Why the story? Because my hypothesis is that much of the three year
disagreement within the MOQ between the mystics and the rationals comes from
one group (the mystics) constantly focusing not just on the product, but
upon the product AND the set of instructions and warnings that come with the
product. The rationals are comfortable with the base product and have long
since discarded their manuals.
METAPHYSICAL WARNINGS
The mystics take very seriously the warnings against engaging in metaphysical
explorations that Pirsig writes throughout the beginning and end of the book.
He tells us that Quality is the central reality of mysticism. The
fundamental nature of reality is indivisible, undefineable and unknowable.
Dividing, splitting or abstracting reality into parts is a degenerate immoral
activity that actually carries you away from reality.
However, Pirsig offers that there can be certain value in dividing and
sorting reality into conceptual patterns called metaphysics. Maps may not be
reality, they may even distort reality, but the map building process can be
valuable -- especially if we remember that the map is not the reality it
describes. By dividing and sorting reality, Pirsig builds a Quality-centered
map of the universe.
Marco, everything you say and quote regarding the MOQ is correct according to
this metaphysical map. You rightly point out that Pirsig's first division is
between Dynamic and static, and that he then divides the static patterns into
four discrete levels, and he explains the emergence of the levels via a
process of evolution of Quality.
My only concern with your interpretation is that the MOQ map includes a user
manual. And that manual has the following warning in it:
WARNING!! THE MOQ DEALS ONLY WITH CONCEPTUAL MAPS OF REALITY, NOT WITH
REALITY ITSELF. THE USER IS CAUTIONED TO REMEMBER THAT REALITY IS
FUNDAMENTALLY INDIVISIBLE, DYNAMIC AND FLOWING, AND THOUGH METAPHYSICAL MAPS
ADD VALUE, THEY ARE ULTIMATELY DEGENERATIVE PATHS THAT LEAD AWAY FROM
REALITY, NOT TOWARD IT. IF YOU WANT A MAP, CONSIDER THIS ONE. IF YOU WANT
REALITY, THROW THIS AND ALL OTHER MAPS AWAY.
In my view, the warning in the manual is not incidental. It is critical to
the value of the map. In fact is one of its best features, and it acts to
separate the MOQ from prior maps.
This is a long winding way to say that our disagreements seem to arise around
the definition of the map. When questions arise, you and many other members
of this forum go to the map and correctly answer that "According to the MOQ
there are 4 distinct types of patterns or levels" [my paraphrasing].
My answer is that you are correct, but that your answers apply to the MOQ's
metaphysical map and not to reality. It is correct that the MOQ lays this out
as a set of consistent possible divisions of reality. It is not correct to
state that the MOQ actually says this about reality. In fact, considering
the warning at the bottom of the map, it would be most correct to say that
though the MOQ builds a high quality metaphysical map divided into four sets
of distinct patterns, one must not forget that the map does not point toward
reality, it points toward itself within the context of those that read it.
Other maps exist, and each is measured on its value to explain and guide, but
for reality do not look in the map. Instead drop this and all other maps and
just experience.
THE QUESTIONS
Now, let me go to our two infamous questions:
Q1) Are all patterns of value also intellectual patterns?
A) Hmmmm, according to the MOQ map, there are four discrete types of
patterns. So the answer must be "NO"..... Ooops, hold on a second, there is
a warning on the bottom of the map. The warning is part of the map and it
specifically states that divisions of reality and maps such as this one are
"intellectual constructs." So the answer is that on one level "no," but from
a broader perspective, every division and explanation on this map is
intellectual in nature. So on the higher level, the answer is yes. The
latter answer is more inclusive of all the information on the map.
Q2) Were the 4 levels discovered or created?
A) Within the metaphysical map, arguments could probably be built to support
either view. However, the arguments would be moot, as reading the warning on
the bottom of the map should remind us again that this entire map and
everything included with it was created by Robert Pirsig. This and every
other map should not be judged upon its single exclusive ownership of truth,
but based upon its value as an intellectual explanation. Pirsig created a map
of discrete levels. But he is not saying that reality fundamentally shares
this property. In fact, he is saying that reality is dynamic, undivided and
therefore it is NOT fundamentally built of these distinct separate patterns.
SUMMARY
Marco, I have avoided your specific questions, instead seeing more value in a
fresh perspective on the issue. However, if you want me to, I will go back
and address any specifics in your prior posts. Just let me know.
Any and all input from anyone would be appreciated.
Rog
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
