What’s wrong with this
picture?
(My Holarchy and the
integration of
Robert Pirsig and Ken
Wilber)
By Gary M. Jaron
May 30, 2002[1]
I
must confess my own holarchy/map/diagram of metaphysical reality began out of
rejection. I looked upon a map/diagram
and was displeased, it was ugly.
Socrates taught me about the Good, the True and the Beautiful. Robert Pirsig[2]
taught me that this holy trinity was one and it was Quality. Of course!
Things of powerful and fundamental truth were not only good, but they
were beautiful--they were simple elegant statements of clarity. Truth and Beauty were united. Classical attributes of beautiful things
were simple, elegant, and balanced.
Lets us look at the map of reality that precedes Pirsig’s revelatory new
metaphysics.
Reality
Subjective(Mental) Objective(Physical)
Classic (intellectual) Romantic
(Emotional)
Here
is a balanced and sturdy configuration.
On the top is a unity out of which branches off two levels of balanced
items. It is no wonder that such an
edifice has stood the test of time. A
building such as this has a solid foundation.
It is like a two story building with a peaked roof. Solidity, strength, simplicity, are all
adjectives one can used to describe the diagram on purely esthetic
observations. It thus should have some
sort of truth to it, since it has such overwhelming beauty. But, there is something wrong with the
picture when you examine it through the eye of intellect[3],
as thousands of years of philosophic and scientific writings have
conveyed. Now, lets look at the ‘New’
metaphysics of Robert Pirsig, he the champion of Quality, he the unifier of all
that is Good, True and Beautiful.
Quality(Reality)
Romantic Quality Classic
Quality
(Preintellectual Reality) (Intellectual
Reality)
Subjective
Reality Objective Reality
(Mind) (Matter)
My
first reaction to this map/diagram was purely esthetic. And I was shocked. It was ugly. It was
unbalanced. If it was a building it
would surely topple over! This edifice
could not stand on its own! I was
completely baffled. How could someone
who wrote with such elegance about truth, which surely Pirsig does, create such
an picture that so clearly lacks elegance?
Without even analyzing the words and ideas conveyed by the diagram I
felt that there was something wrong with this picture of reality.
But,
most shocking of all, upon my current re-reading of Pirsig’s book, probably my
6th or 7th read of it, I had my own revelation! The diagram Pirsig presented was not an
accurate picture of his own words! It
was as if the diagram was laid out by the Narrator and not by Phaedrus the
philosopher who had the revelation concerning Quality. Return with me to chapter 20 of Zen and
the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Go to what is page 247 in the Quill edition, the paragraph begins
thusly:
‘He’d
been speculating about the relationship of Quality to mind and matter and had
identified Quality as the parent of mind and matter, that event which gives
birth to mind and matter. This
Copernican inversion of the relationship of Quality to the objective world
could sound mysterious if not carefully explained, but he didn’t mean to be
mysterious. He simply meant that at the
cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there must be a
kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he called awareness of Quality. You can’t be aware that you’ve seen a tree
until after you’ve seen the tree, and between the instant of vision and
instant of awareness there must be a time lag….The past exists only in our
memories, the future only in our plans.
The present is our only reality.
The tree that you are aware of intellectually, because of that small
time lag, is always in the past and therefore is always unreal. Any intellectually conceived object is
always in the past and therefore unreal. Reality is always the moment of vision before
the intellectualization takes place.
There is no other reality.
This preintellectual reality is what Phaedrus felt he had properly
defined as Quality. Since all
intellectual identifiable things must emerge from this preintellectual
reality, Quality is the parent, the source of all subjects and
objects.’
Powerful
words. But let us carefully consider
them. The scene that Pirsig is
describing consists of a person observing a tree. So, first off there exists matter! A human being stands on planet Earth and a tree grows out of the
soil of planet Earth. Examine the word
‘preintellectual’. Watch were it takes
us. Pre-intellectual means something
before there is an intellectual understanding.
The intellect is a faculty of a human mind! Pre-intellectual is before the things the mind creates, which is
words. Before intellect there is a
non-verbal occurrence. We now have a
body which has sense data, non-verbal, and this body process the sense data
with its intellect--its mind. Out of
this processing we have understanding.
Pirsig labels Preintellectual with Romantic Quality and intellectual
with Classical Quality. The actual diagram
Pirsig is describing looks more like this:
Quality
(Objective Reality)
Matter
(Planet Earth)
(trees and people)
a human mind
(Subjective Reality)
Romantic Quality
(preintellectual awareness)
Classic Quality
(intellectual distinguishing
identifiable things)
Now
this visual edifice is solid and stable.
But this is not the diagram that Pirsig gave in his book! But it is the diagram as described by the
paragraph from his book that I just cited!
Quality exists before words, before intellect. We are made of matter and perceive things made of matter
(trees). We silently, non-verbally are
aware of, experience objects made of matter and then we come to understand
those objects and give them labels, words.
This labeling is Classic Quality which we make in our intellect--our
mind! Classic Quality is a product of a
human mind! Romantic Quality is the
silent appreciation and experience of matter by a human being with a mind![4] That is exactly what Pirsig is saying in the
paragraph I quoted.
Wow.
Then
if we examine Chapter 24 and the Train metaphor it reinforces the re-worked
Pirsig map just laid out above. Pirsig
begins this metaphor by calling the Train traveling across the prairies the
train of knowledge, which he subdivides into Classical and Romantic Knowledge. At first it appears that he has acknowledged
that the human mind can classify it’s understanding of Reality into a division
of two worldviews and that the cars in this train are filled with Romantic
stuff and Classical stuff. But, this is
not the case. ‘Classic Knowledge,
the knowledge taught by the Church of Reason, is the engine and all the
boxcars. All of them and everything
that’s in them. If you subdivide the
train into parts you will find no Romantic Knowledge anywhere.’ [ZMM, pg.
283.] This is odd, so where is Romantic
Quality?
I
know it exists[5], it is found
in ‘hip-ness’, it is the emotional response to somethings appearance, it is the
recognition of the Beautiful, it is seeing the world through the eye of Art and
beauty. But Pirsig says ‘Romantic
Quality, in terms of this analogy, isn’t any ‘part’ of the train. It’s the leading edge of the engine…’[ZMM,
pg. 283] Hmm, this is odd. Yes there is a leading edge, yes that
leading edge is before words, pre-verbal and thus ‘pre-intellectual’. But, is this really Romantic Quality?
‘It’s
the leading edge of the train of knowledge that keeps the whole train on
track. Traditional knowledge is only
the collective memory of where that leading edge has been. At the leading edge there are no subject, no
objects, only the track of Quality ahead, and if you have no formal way of
evaluating, no way of acknowledging this Quality , then the entire train has no
way of knowing where to go…The cutting edge of this instant right here and now
is always nothing less than the totality of everything there is. Value, the leading edge of reality, is no
longer an irrelevant offshoot of structure.
Value is the predecessor of structure.
It’s the pre-intellectual awareness that gives rise to it. Our structured reality is preselected on the
basis of value, and really to understand structured reality requires an
understanding of the value source from which it’s derived.’ [ZMM, pg 283-4]
Yes. That cutting edge is the contact with
Quality. Our prior understanding of
what Quality is, the contents of the train helps guide us in where we are going
and what we will comprehend out of that encounter with the unknown at the point
of the leading edge. Quality guides us,
but is it Romantic Quality? I think
that Pirsig realizes that there is pre-intellectual experience and intellectual
experience but he also acknowledging that there is pre-intellectual
understanding of a thing and of Quality, and that there is intellectual
understanding of a thing and of Quality.
Pirsig is combining experience with understanding. I believe they are two separate
constructs. Experience is an event and
term to describe the process of encountering Reality and therefore encountering
Quality. Understanding is what we do
after the encounter. It is the results
of the encounter.
Thus,
Classic Quality[6] and Romantic
Quality are useful terms to describe our appreciation of, our understanding of
Reality. They describe the
understanding of Reality and the results into knowledge. I would put Romantic Quality back into the
train, and make some of the box cars Romantic Quality. Now, it is true that Romantic Quality
appreciates the surface value of events and things and thus is not Classically
intellectual. Romantic Quality draws
more heavily from the emotions as to feeling its way into understanding. Things either feel right or wrong using the
Romantic perspective. Emotions, as I
believe and as I will explain, are prior to intellectual constructs and that is
why I believe Pirsig linked pre-intellectuality with all things Romantic. But by mixing experience with understanding
he took Romantic Quality understanding and left if out of the box cars of
knowledge. I think we should put it
back.
One
last thing. If the box cars are the sum
total of our knowledge, which I have now described as being Classic and
Romantic, what is the engine? That I
believe is the human mind.
So,
what is this pre-intellectual experience, this leading edge of the train? It is most definitely an encounter with
Quality.
‘Quality
is not a thing. It is an event. Warmer.
It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the object. And because without objects there can be no
subject--because the objects create the subject’s awareness of himself--Quality
is the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made
possible. Hot…This means Quality is not
just the result of a collision between subject and object. The very existence of subject and object
themselves is deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the subjects and
objects. [ZMM, pg. 239] Absolutely!
The encounter with Quality, the Quality event that is the leading edge
of the Train of knowledge! It is not
Romantic Quality. The leading edge is
the time and place where the subject and object meet.
Now
we have one final map from ZMM.
Everything is properly classified and both Classic and Romantic Quality
has been satisfied.
QUALITY
(Objective Reality)
Matter
(Planet Earth)
(trees and people)
QUALITY EVENT
a human mind
(Subjective Reality)
(preintellectual experience & awareness)
(intellectual distinguishing
and understanding identifiable things)
Romantic Quality -- Classic Quality
My
goal, for the remainder of this essay is to work out the implications of this
new diagram. In doing this I will
attempt to integrate the world views of Robert Pirsig and Ken Wilber. I will do this with the model of the brain
and the mind from Erich Harth’s book: The Creative Loop: How the Brain Makes
a Mind (1993), and lastly with my own insights. In the end the success or failure of this venture lies with
me. I foresee a view of the world that
starts with energy moves up to matter, through simple cellular life, going up
to plants, animals and continuing on up to human beings, who have minds, and
have a connection to the ultimate spirit of cosmic all and oneness. My intention is to end the ‘mind -- body
question’ by simply pointing out that Pirsig, Wilber, and Harth have actually
already solved and dissolved that age old problem.
What
is the Mind? Rene Descartes in his Discourse
on Method (1637) posited that the body was matter in motion and the source
of emotions, desires, instincts, and physiological process. The Mind was a non-material intellectual
faculty whose nature was totally different than anything else in the material
universe. The mind and the body: two
unique substances that interact with each other. Since then many have others have entered the fray and proposed
all sorts of ways to describe and overcome the difference between the mind and
the body. I believe the mind and the
body are two sides of the same thing.
Take
with me this leap of faith and imagine the universe thusly: The universe is
made up of energy and matter and that is all, nothing else but this. What makes for the rich diversity of
existence is structure. Matter and
energy is interconnected and structured in an almost infinite variety of ways
and configurations on an incredible multiplicity of levels. From sub-atomic particles all the way up to
galaxies. All of it is merely energy
and matter which has a particular structure.
Now having said this, I do not believe that the universe is devoid of
life, mind, spirit or Quality. I simply
believe that all of these things evolve from the complexities contained within
the internal and external attributes of the structure of energy and
matter. I believe that Quality is the
Internal aspect and the cause of the diverse configuration of structure
Externally and Internally of all energy and matter in the Universe on all levels. I believe that mind and spirit are the
internal experience and the internal attributes of the external arrangements of
all energy and matter.
To
get from the above vast vision to my explanation I need to start with an
examination of words. To understand
words I need to briefly explore Taoism.
Lao Tsu taught that: ‘The Tao that can be told is not the eternal
Tao. The name that can be named is not
the eternal name.’ [From Lao Tsu’s Tao Te Ching, Chapter One,
translated by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English.]
Alfred Korzybski wrote something very similar when he said: ‘A Word
is not the things spoken about, and that there is no such thing as an object in
absolute isolation.’ [From pg 50 of Korzybski’s book Science and Sanity.] And: ‘The map is not the territory it
represents, but if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which
accounts for its usefulness.’ [Korzybski, pg. 58.] The Tao is the ultimate object that we can
speak about and the ultimate territory that we can try to map. But everything that we say is ‘not the
eternal Tao’ it remains words. The Tao
is before human words and human maps.
Human words and human maps come after and are not the same as the pre-verbal/non-verbal
reality and experience of the Tao. So,
what follows is a map in the form of words.
It can never be the same as the Tao, but it is all we humans can do[7]. We are map makers[8]
and word users[9].
The
human word ‘Tao’ [which has the literal translation into English as a way, a
path, a road.] and the human word ‘Quality’, I believe are exact
equivalents. The choice of words are
the products of two individuals working within the maps of two cultures. One map and culture was a Romantic Quality
culture (China, and thus the world, as experienced by Lao Tsu) the other a Classical
Quality culture (United States, and thus the world, as experienced by Robert
Pirsig.) Having said this, I will start
with both terms for final emphasis and then drop the use of the word ‘Tao’ and
switch to Pirsig’s term Quality, since this essay that follows is more about
Classical Quality map making than Romantic Quality map making.
>
I believe that Tao/Quality is the ultimate
Holon, and all Holon’s exist not in absolute isolation but in a Holarchy[10]. And by saying this I therefore am asserting
that the totality of everything, all non-verbal objects and all verbal objects
are Holons. The assertion that Quality
is a Holon is something that is inherent in the nature of and the reality of
Quality. It is not a mere human
map. [An analogy: The word ‘gravity’ is
a human invention and everything that can be spoken to describe ‘gravity’ in
what ever symbol system used is still a collection of human effort. Yet, Gravity is a force which exists in the
workings of Reality before any human every noticed its presence.] (The word ‘Holon’ and the word ‘Holarchy’
are the invention of Arthur Koestler from his book ‘The Ghost and The Machine’.
The recognition of the importance of those terms to making a true map of
reality was later acknowledged by Ken Wilber[11].)
A Holon
is a term to describe an object which has the characteristics of simultaneously
being both an individual whole, composed of parts, as well as being a single
part of some larger whole. This part
and whole aspect is complementary and not a divisible distinction. An analogy is to a photon having both wave
and particle characteristics, depending on the tools use to examine the
photon. All Holon’s have the following
characteristics. They came be described
from the perspective of External and Internal, as Individual Wholes and as
Parts of a Collective, and they have Dynamic Quality and Static Quality. [These
last two terms are from Robert Pirsig and were not known to, or used by,
Koestler or Wilber.]
All
of these characteristics are not either/or choices. Not one or the other.
Either/or choices are forcing that which is Dynamic into something
artificial and Static. Each pair,
External--Internal, Individual/Wholes--Collective/Parts, Dynamic--Static, are
choices along continuums where abstract purity is imagined at either end of the
continuum, but objects can be described anywhere along that continuum. The continuum is a metaphor which recognizes
the Dynamic Quality relationships in the structure and nature of Reality. To use only the tool of comparisons and
contrasting is to utilize only Static Quality tools. The act of placing an object along the continuum is a human
choice. And thus is not the ‘True’
choice, which is what both Lao Tsu and Korzybski warns us about. That all objects have those characteristics
is ‘True’, it is a part of the non-verbal and pre-human nature of reality. Realizing that those choices exists and
formulating a map to describe those choices is a human act and a human product
and thus theoretically there can never be an end to the map making.
As
Koestler and Wilber have eloquently stated in their books, all Holons are part
of a Holarchy. They can be mapped out
showing their relationships vertically and horizontally. This arrangement is endless in either
direction. Unless you recognize that at
either end, the final uppermost/biggest whole that can be imagined is Quality
and the final smallest part that can be imagined is Quality. To give as an illustration of a External
Classical Quality holarchy, one made by a Western Scientists, the Universe
would be at the top of the holarchy and quarks, or whatever makes up quarks,
would be at the bottom of their holarchy.
Now
begins my map making.
Reality
is because there is Quality. Without
Quality there would only be pure, uniform, undifferentiated energy quantum
particles. Because there is Quality the
Universe exists and is structured as it is.
Energy and Matter continually dance and flow in a continuum of Dynamic
and Static manifestations all in accordance with Quality. Quality is what makes for organization in a
structural pattern of Holon’s in a Holarchy.
That flow of energy and matter has formed into many things, some of
which are a form of life[12]
which is sentient. [Theoretically
humans are not the only such species in the Universe, hence this
reference. But for the sake of
simplicity I will henceforth only address this discussion to our own species.]
All
human beings interact with the Universe and within themselves. This interaction is Pirsig’s Quality
Event. That interaction starts
externally as an interaction of energy and matter with other configurations of
energy and matter which make up the human body. This External aspect of the Quality Event, like the rest of the
Universe, is a continuum of events of sub-atomic through atomic, through
molecular, through chemical, bio-chemical, through networks of biological
systems.
Our
brains have evolved such that the neurological wiring not only processes data
coming in from sources external to the brain, but it is wired to react to and
monitor it’s own brain processes. Our
brain is ‘self-aware’ on a biological level because of this reflexive and
recursive neurological structure[13]. This ‘self-awareness’ of our own
biological/nervous system and brain states is the external key to our own inner
experience of self-awareness.
This
addition of Wilber’s sense of Internal is what Harth was missing from his own
analysis. Harth only had a construct of
the external physicality as being all that was, and thus could not imagine that
all things had by their very nature a valid and acceptable Internal
aspect. Once this is added then Harth’s
own model is complete in and of itself.
He has describe the model of neurological structure that gives rise to
the mind. This being aware of our own
processes is the experience that is a continuum from sensations up to feelings
and even up to thoughts. This internal
experience and processes is what gives rise to the Mind.
We
evolved, for reasons unknown, the ability to conceive of and process the
monitoring of our own internal brain processes into sets of symbols. These symbols give rise to words. A product of the workings of our brain
biology gives rise to a mind. Within
that mind are thought processes, which are pre-symbolic. We developed overtime symbols, which
eventually evolved into words, as a means to organize our thought
processes. Our attempting to organize
and understand the world we live in and experience is a process which utilizes
symbols and words.
The
brain is a collection of neural structure which is holarchical. It can be mapped out vertically and
horizontally. What I am about to do is
to describe that holarchical structure.
The
First, lowest, and quantitatively speaking, the largest amount of activity
takes place at this ‘basement’ level of brain activity. It is the level of matter/energy exchange
taking place in the form of bio-chemical neural interaction. It is where and when information from higher
level brain activity is transmitted and starts other bio-chemical neural
interactions which lead to information being sent to the rest of the body
bio-chemical systems. All sensory data
is input to this level. All sensory
data is compared to stored information made up of, at this level, previous
patterns of information. To reiterate,
everything on this level is either in coming or out going matter/energy and it
is also the structured patterns of matter/energy which makes up the whole unit
known as a single human body, a single human being.
The
second level up, and the next largest amount of activity, is when the
bio-chemical neural patterns of information is processed, is matched up with
the bio-chemical neural patterns of information that is stored as the symbols of human creation. When the highest 3rd level takes
notice of this activity, it is the Internal experience of this External
bio-chemical neurological process which is what we humans describe as
non-verbal feelings, non-verbal images and non-verbal sensations [Touch, taste,
smell, etc.]. This experience is
Internal and the first experience of what has been labeled by the
word--‘Mind’. All those ‘feelings’,
‘images’, ‘sensations’ (‘smells’, ‘tastes’, ‘touches’, etc.) have been stored
as patterns of neural inter-relationships similar to how data is stored in a
computer, to use a metaphor. We can by
example compare this 2nd level with all the data stored in a
computer, which is stored as patterns of ones and zeros, on and offs. This is the same for neurons. They have, or have not, a bio-chemical charge,
which is the equivalent of the computer’s ones and zeros. At this 2nd level information is
sent up to the upper 3rd level of brain activity and information is
brought down from that 3rd level.
This 2nd level also interacts with the level before and below
itself, the 1st level.
This
2nd level starts as an External processing level and therefore
before the existence of human words. At
this level non-verbal ‘feelings’, ‘images’ ‘sensations’ are then being
translated into human symbols and words.
Also at this level human symbols and words are being translated back
into non-verbal feelings, etc. This
activity when it is noticed by the uppermost level will be first experienced
non-verbally and then be experienced verbally when the 3rd level
desires to comprehend the experience.
Then the 3rd level will experiencing ‘thoughts’ and
‘emotions’. At the moment any of this
is noticed by the 3rd level it becomes part of the Internal aspect
of the Mind event/experience. This 2nd
level is where the neural system process the data and ‘understands’ that
data. This is the level of both
‘sub-conscious thoughts’ and ‘un-conscious thoughts’, to use terminology of the
human map called psychology. Of course
so long as their thought processes remain un-noticed by the upper 3rd
level then remain non-verbal processes.
Any and all thoughts noticed by the 3rd level are experienced
by that 3rd level as ‘thinking’, ‘ideas’, ‘beliefs’, ‘theories’,
etc. All products of the human Mind are
first composed/created at this 2nd level.
At
this 2nd level External objects, External experience of those
objects, and even the human constructs of Ideas, Beliefs, etc, all are
classified and located along the Classical Quality -- Romantic Quality
continuum. ‘Classical Quality’ and
‘Romantic Quality’ are not part of the six characteristics of Holons. They are pure human experience and
constructs. They are products of
Internal human activity[14]. They have no External existence outside of a
human mind[15] [except
that the words which the human mind has created can be manifested in External
mediums, on computer screens and on paper, for two examples.] This means that theoretically anything can
be classified as either having more or less Classical Quality, or more or less
Romantic Quality by any single individual human and these choice can be
diametrically in opposition and contradiction to another human’s choices.
Over
all it is here at the 2nd level that what we humans describe as
Internal Reality is created[16]. Everything experienced ‘here’ at this level
is part of Internal Reality. Everything
not experienced ‘here’, and not experienced at the final 3rd level
is thus designated as External Reality.
The
uppermost level of neural activity is the smallest quantitatively. It is the level of ‘Consciousness’. Another word for this level is
‘Awareness.’ Consciousness is the
Internal experience of self-identity.
This upper 3rd level is where and when all brain activity
previous described is experienced. Here
is where and when thoughts can be formed in a verbal manner that directs the
human body to take action. Here is
where and when the experience of controlling the lower level activities takes
‘place’. This is the level of
awareness. It is a level of pure
experience. It is not a level of brain
processing[17]. All neural brain processing which allows
there to be the experience of consciousness, is done at all the lower levels.
The
3rd level is simply the
sensation of directing thought and experiencing emotions and even experiencing
the non-verbal sensations and all other sensory data. What is called ‘the conscious mind’ is at this level. To repeat myself: the activity that gives
rise to the ‘conscious mind’ or ‘conscious awareness’ or ‘consciousness’ is all
taking place below this 3rd level holarchically speaking. This experience of consciousness can be
extremely focused. Consciousness can
fixate on simply the Partness of a single Holon, be it a singular object or act
of Internal or External reality. Or
consciousness can focus on the Wholeness of a single Holon, mystically expanded
into a sensation of cosmic communion with the totality of Internal and External
Quality.
My
map, my holarchy can be illustrated thusly:
EXTERNAL REALITY
TAO/QUALITY
ENERGY/MATTER
UNIVERSE
QUALITY EVENTS
SENTIENT BEING
BIOCHEMICAL EVENTS WITHIN THE SENTIENT BEING
-----------SENTIENT BEING’S MIND------------
INTERNAL
REALITY
SENSATIONS/FEELINGS/THOUGHT PROCESS
Symbols/Words
Ideas/Beliefs/Emotions
Romantic Quality - - Classical Quality
One
last thing before we leave ZMM. I would
like to touch upon what Pirsig calls Mythos over Logos, and how it lead to
Phaedrus slipping into insanity. ‘The
term logos…refers to the sum total of our rational understanding of the
world. Mythos is the sum total of the
early historic and prehistoric myths which precede logos…The mythos-over-logos
argument states that our rationality is shaped by these legends, that our
knowledge today is in relation to these legends.’ [ZMM, pg. 349] ‘What keeps the world from reverting to
the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing, ongoing mythos,
transformed into logos but still mythos, the huge body of common knowledge…To
go outside the mythos is to become insane.’ [ZMM, pg. 350] ‘Because Quality is the generator of the
mythos. That’s it. That’s what he meant when he said, “Quality
is the continuing stimulus which causes us to create the world in which we
live. All of it. Every last bit.” Religion isn’t invented by man.
Men are invented by religion.
Men invent responses to Quality, and among these responses is an
understanding of what they themselves are.
You know something and then the Quality stimulus hits and then you try
to define the Quality stimulus, but to define it all you’ve got to work with is
what you know. So your definition is
made up of what you know. It’s analogue
to what you already know. It has to
be. It can’t be anything else. And the mythos grows this way. By analogues to what is known before. The mythos is a building of analogues upon
analogues upon analogues[18]. These fill the boxcars of the train of
consciousness. The mythos is the whole
train of collective consciousness.’ [ZMM, pg. 351]
Insanity
is the rejecting of your societies mythos.
Insanity is the label place on you by your culture when you venture off
the known, the mythos, into the unknown and thereby the unacknowledged as even
existing. When you map out new
territory, you’re mapping the unknown, the possible stuff of madness and trying
to bring it back into the known. You
are forging it into sanity and thus adding to mythos. It your map fails to get accepted or if you don’t articulate the
map, either way insanity and insane is the label that will be placed on
you. If you stay to long outside the
mythos or get lost in that unknown, uncharted territory you risk insanity. All these things happened to Phaedrus. Pirsig by writing ZMM is mapping out the
territory explored by Phaedrus. In
doing so Pirsig is making what was outside the mythos understandable in terms
of the mythos. Pirsig is guiding the reader
and himself, Phaedrus, back into the mythos.
He is making a new map which charts new territory.
Part II: Lila: An Inquiry into
Morals
In Lila:
An Inquiry Into Morals, Pirsig offers a new map[19],
a new version of his metaphysical map of reality. It is Based on the concept of Dynamic--Static Quality as the
unifying principle and the construct by which Reality is formed around The
words in the [] brackets are my additions.:
[Dynamic Quality]
Intellectual Patterns of Static Quality [Internal Reality]
Social Patterns of Static Quality[External & Internal
Reality]
Biological Patterns of Static Quality[External Reality]
Inorganic Patterns of Static Quality[External Reality]
[Dynamic Quality]
Dynamic
Quality is both the Ground of Being and the Goal of Being.
Lets
use this map to illustrate the principles of holarchies. Take a single human being. We are a whole unit. But if and when we get sick or hurt and we
go to the doctor the doctor will treat us like a collection of parts,
Biological Patterns. We will be broken
up into a collection of whole units/systems: nervous system, endocrine system,
respiratory system, skeletal system, etc.
Then we could take any whole unit/system and break it up into parts. The nervous system is composed of the brain,
the spinal cord, etc. Each of those
whole units can be broken down into parts.
The brain is composed of neo-cortex, cortex, limbic system, etc. Each of these whole units are made up of
parts and etc. Eventually we will be
leaving the Level of Organic chemistry and get down to the level of Inorganic
chemistry, down we go into atoms which are whole units made up of neutrons,
protons, electrons. Which are still
made up of parts, sub-atomic particles and down we go until we get into the
smallest which is the Ground of Being=Dynamic Quality, itself.
Then
if we travel back up the levels through Inorganic, through Organic, up to
Social. On that level the whole human
is part of a neighborhood. Which is a
whole unit that is part of a voting district.
Which is part of a whole unit called a state. Which is part of a whole unit called a country. These entities ‘neighborhood’, ’voting
districts’, ‘states’ ‘country’, are all words and thus on the level of
Intellectual patterns. But, these words
are describing physical geography also, they are on the level of
Inorganic! The states are part of
countries/Nations [a Social Pattern level!], which are parts of continents,
which are part of the Planet Earth, which is part of the Solar System, which is
part of our Milky Way Galaxy, which is part of a cluster of galaxies, which are
part of the Universe, which is part of Dynamic Quality, the goal of all that
organizing patterns!
All
those levels are separate and fixed by us humans not in Reality. All those allocations of levels are human
maps. You can stop along the way and
point to any of object in that list and talk about it as a whole unit or as a
part of some greater whole. But those
words are artificially and sequentially analyzing something that is both a part
and a whole in the actual context of Reality.
Pirsig’s four levels is not real.
It is a human map to describe the underlying Non-verbal Reality which
can be sliced and diced up almost infinitely!
This
is not much different than his previous ZMM diagram, once I had unearthed it
from the text, nor is it much different than my own Pirsig/Wilber inspired
map. Quality is the ordering principle
throughout. Energy/Matter is patterned
into to a variety of evolutionary levels of development. From matter (Inorganic) up to life (Organic)
to human life (Social), and each human being has a mind (Intellectual). Quality is found through and through. The mind is not a substance different from
matter but a more evolved pattern of matter which evolved because it is a
manifestation of Quality.
Pirsig
appears to be being simplistic if he is asserting that each object on each of
his levels is purely a static pattern of Quality. This would not make sense and would be contrary to facts. On the subatomic level matter is anything
but static it is in dynamic quantum potential.
An above the atomic nothing is fixed or stable but subject to, at the
very least, the affects of time--things wear down and/or grow old and die. So even such a simplistic view of reality
would pronounce that no thing exists as a permanent static pattern. The difference being that some patterns are
more stable and lasting than others but all patterns have within them the
element of dynamic growth and decay.
Thus we are back to my earlier presentation that Dynamic--Static is an
attribute of all Holons, all things that exists. Which brings Pirsig’s MoQ from Lila map to look like this:
Quality
Intellectual Systems[Internal Reality]
Social Systems[External & Internal Reality]
Biological Systems[External Reality]
Inorganic systems[External Reality]
Quality
A
difference between this Lila map and ZMM map is that Lila focus is on
collectives and the focus of ZMM is on the individual. Two different aspects of all Holons. They are in principle the same map.
Quality
Intellectual Systems [Internal/Subjective Reality]
Classical Quality (Intellectual formulations)
Romantic Quality (Preintellectual awareness)
Individual humans [a biological Matter]organized in
Social Systems [Objective/External Reality]
Biological [Matter] Systems (that lack a
sentient & symbol making mind)[Objective/External Reality]
Inorganic [Matter]Systems [Objective/External
Reality]
Now,
to add to all of this, Pirsig is not the first to make such maps. Humans have been doing it since the
beginning of thought! Try this map made
by Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi [1165-1240 CE]:
Mineral World[Inorganic Level]
Vegetal World[Organic Level]
Animal World[Organic Level
Surface[Intellectual Level, by a human & thus Social
Level]
Signs [Intellectual Level]
Universal order[Intellectual Level]
Integral ideas[Intellectual Level]
Intellect in Holy forms[Intellectual Level]
Visions-wholeness[Intellectual Level & description of
Dynamic Quality]
Ascending sights[Intellectual Level & description of
Dynamic Quality]
Divine light[Intellectual Level & description of
Dynamic Quality]
Bliss[Intellectual Level & description of Dynamic
Quality]
Witness-totality[Intellectual Level & description of
Dynamic Quality]
Gnosis[Intellectual Level & description of Dynamic
Quality]
A Returned One[Pure Dynamic Quality(?)]
The
map was provide by Ken Wilber in his book Integral Psychology. Pirsig not being a mystic does not get into
mapping out the levels of Dynamic Quality.
Here’s another map presented by Ken Wilber, this one is found both in Sex,
Ecology, Spirituality and in his book A Brief History of Everything: This map is from Plotinus [205-270 CE]
Matter[Inorganic Level]
Vegetative life[Organic Level]
Sensation[Inorganic Level sense data in a human thus Social
Level]
Perception[Organic Level brain process]
Pleasure/pain[Organic level brain process]
Images[Intellectual level]
Concepts & opinions[Intellectual level]
Logical Faculty[Intellectual level]
Creative Reason[Intellectual level]
Soul/World Soul[Intellectual Level & description of
Dynamic Quality]
Nous[Intellectual Level & description of Dynamic
Quality]
Absolute One[Pure Dynamic Quality (?)]
Hopefully
you are getting the point. Pirsig was
not the first, nor will he be the last to map out Reality. His map is similar to those who historically
came before him, even if he was not directly influence by them. His map is not new. But, this does not diminish Pirsig/ his maps
usefulness. The importance is to not
limit oneself to only one tool/one map.
The only way to understand Reality is to acquire more maps. There is a saying: ‘The mind is like a
book. Both are only useful when they
are open.’ To limit oneself solely to
Pirsig, having a closed mind, or for that matter to any single author, is a
mistake[20].
[End
of Part II. Part III will continue with
a full exploration of Lila
[21]
.]
[1] This essay
is a work in progress.
[2] I will be
footnoting this essay with citations from Pirsig’s book, Zen and the Art of
Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values’, Quill edition, 1979, as I
re-read it.
[3] ZMM [pg 282]
‘This eternally dualistic subject-object way of approaching the motorcycle
sounds right to us because we’re used to it.
But it’s not right. It’s always
been an artificial interpretation superimposed on reality. It’s never been reality itself.’
[4] ZMM [pg
374.] ‘”Man is the measure of all things.”
Yes, that’s what he is saying about Quality. Man is not the source of all things, as the subjective
idealists would say. Nor is he the
passive observer of all things, as the objective idealists and materialists
would say. The Quality which creates
the world emerges as a relationship between man and his experience. He is a participant in the creation
of all things.’
[5] Pirsig, ZMM,
, pg 73, ‘A romantic understanding sees it [the world] primarily in
terms of immediate appearance…The romantic mode is primarily inspirational,
imaginative, creative, intuitive.
Feelings rather than facts predominate.
“Art” when it is opposed to “Science” is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by
laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition
and esthetic conscience.’ [pg. 124]
‘The romantic reality is primarily esthetic, but it has its theory
too.’ [Could Romantic Quality be a
recognition by a human being of the Internal nature of objects?]
[6] Pirsig, ZMM,
pg. 73, ‘Classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying
form itself.’ [pg 74] ‘The
classic mode…proceeds by reason and by laws-which are themselves underlying
forms of thought and behavior…There is a classic esthetic which romantics often
miss because of its subtlety. The
classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical, and
carefully proportioned. Its purpose is
not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the
unknown known. It is esthetically
restrained. Everything is under
control. Its value is measured in terms
of the skill with which this control is maintained.’ [pg 124] ‘…classic reality is primarily
theoretic but has its own esthetics too.' [Could Classical Quality be the recognition by a human being of
the External nature of objects?
‘Underlying form’ being an attribute of the External nature of an
object.]
[7] This process
of using words and making maps is a process of taking a dynamic event composed
of the interaction of the infinite world of things and rendering them
static. It is a process of taking life
out of it all. Pirsig, ZMM, pg. 83, ‘When
analytic thought, the knife, is applied to experience, something is always
killed in the process.’ This death
is a necessary by product of analysis, of map making. Map making is always studying dead things. Map making is linear and sequential, because
that is the structure inherent in the use of human language. To make up for this linear, sequential staticness
metaphors are employed. Metaphors are a
static attempt to put back the element of the dynamic into one’s
analysis/maps. Pirsig [pg. 283] ‘A
train really isn’t a train if it can’t go anywhere. In the process of examining the train and subdividing it into
parts we’ve in-advertently stopped it, so that it really isn’t a train we are
examining. That’s why we get
stuck. The real train of knowledge [The
Eternal Tao and not the word Tao] isn’t a static entity can be stopped and
subdivided. It’s always going
somewhere. On a track called Quality.’
[8] The word
‘map’ as I am using it is as a metaphor for a theory, a concept, a hypothesis,
an idea, an intellectual tool. Abraham
Maslow said this about tools: ‘If the only tool you have is a hammer, you
tent to treat everything as if it were a nail.’ [Cited by Robert Ornstein in his book The
Psychology of Consciousness (1972 Pelican Edition, pg 23) cites
Maslow without a page reference the source of this phrase as being Maslow’s: The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance,
1969, Henery Regnery.] To use Maslow’s
hammer analogy: a tool trap occurs when you relate to situations you are
encountering in terms of the parameters set by the tools. Thus if you only have a hammer you would
find it difficult to properly use a screw, or if you had to open a sealed jar
you would bang on the lid or jar itself and probably cause more damage and not
succeed in opening it, or if asked to measure something you would do so in
terms of x number of hammer lengths, or if you had to draw something you would
have to make marks in something soft and the marks you made would be very
blunt, and so on. All tools were made
to solve certain specific sets of problems and situations but they are inadequate
to deal with something outside those parameters. Listening to the rules of how and when to use the tool, traps the
user from going outside of those rules and prevents creativity. Language, as in Human language itself is the
most universally used tool. Therefore
the use of language can create a tool trap.
To avoid this trap you should examine the rules inherent in language to
have an understanding of the parameters that can affect how we think with that
tool. For example, Western linguistic
systems are: very subject-predicate oriented, they categorize everything into
things/objects and actions taken by and done with or to those objects/things,
each word is generally considered to have a single specific meaning, etc. In general I believe that the logic system
used by the basic grammar of Western languages tends to be Aristotelian
logic. Now, that doesn’t mean we are
limited to only A-logic it just means that the first tendency, the first tool
we use when speaking in a Western language is a form of A-logic. Thus, if we have only the hammer of A-logic
we will tend to treat everything as if it were a nail--see only in black and
white, in only either/or distinctions.
Pirsig gave a list in ZMM [pgs. 310-317] of other
cognitive traps to avoid two I would mention here, the value trap and the ego
trap. The value trap comes about by
having too rigid an adherence to the constructs/theories/ideas you have already
accumulated. If your values are too
rigid you won’t see new facts. This is
a variation of what I described as a tool trap. The ego trap is by allowing your perception of yourself, your own
evaluation of your personal worth, to prevent you from seeing that you
overlooked a fact or mis-interpreted a fact.
You allow your ego to prevent you from acknowledging that you can make
mistakes and this prevent yourself from fixing a situation which is the results
of a mistake.
[9] The
structure of language and the structure of the logic tools we use should be
examined if we are to avoid a tool trap.
Aristotelian logic is ‘Yes and no…this or that…one or zero. On the basis of this elementary two-term
discrimination, all human knowledge is built up.’[ZMM, pg. 320] Now Pirsig states that there is a logic
beyond this two-term system. ‘Because
we’re unaccustomed to it, we don’t usually see that there’s a third possible
logical term equal to yes and no which is capable of expanding our
understanding in an un-recognized direction.
We don’t even have a term for it, so I’ll have to use the Japanese mu. Mu means “no thing”. Like “Quality” it points outside the process
of dualistic discrimination.’ [ZMM, pg. 320] Now Pirsig didn’t know it but in 1933 Alfred Korzybski developed
a whole system of logic which grew out of recognizing that two valued logic is
not enough. By adding this new system,
this new tool we can avoid falling into the tool trap of only having A
logic. (Although, Null-A logic needs to
be studied to avoid any potential tool traps it could cause.) The book was Science and Sanity: An introduction to Non-Aristotelian
Systems and General Semantics, (1933 by The International Non-Aristotelian
Library Publishing Company, 1941 2nd edition, 1948 3rd
edition and 1958 4th edition.)
Some of the fundamental principles of Korzybski’s Null-A system are the
following: [note: emphasis of certain
words were marked as such in the original source.]
1.“I want to make
clear only that words are not the
things spoken about, and that there is no
such thing as an object in absolute isolation.” [pg. 50 from Science and
Sanity]
2. “We must
realize that structure, and structure
alone is the only link between
languages and the empirical world.” [pg. 50, ibid.]
3. “Two important
characteristics of maps should be noticed.
A map is not the territory it
represents, but, if correct, it has a similar
structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness.” [pg.
58, ibid.]
4. “If we reflect
upon our languages, we find that at best they must be considered only as maps. A word is not the
object it represents; and languages exhibit also this peculiar self-reflexiveness,
that we can analyze languages by linguistic means.”[pg. 58, ibid.]
5. “[T]he common,
A-system and language which we inherited from our primitive ancestors differ entirely in structure from the
well-known and established 1933 structure of the world, ourselves and our
nervous systems included. Such
antiquated map-language, by necessity, must lead us to semantic disaster, as it
imposes and reflects its unnatural
structure on the structure of our doctrines and institutions.”[pg. 59,
ibid.]
6. “As words are not the objects which they
represent, structure and structure alone,
becomes the only link which connects verbal processes with the empirical
data. To achieve adjustment and sanity
and the conditions which follow from them, we must study structural
characteristics of this world first,
and, then only, build languages of similar structure, instead of habitually
ascribing to the world the primitive structure of our languages.” [pg. 59,
ibid.]
7.“If there is no such thing as an absolutely isolate
object, then, at least, we have two objects, and we shall always discover some relation between them, depending on our
interest, ingenuity, and what not.
Obviously, for a man to speak about anything at all, always presupposes two objects, at least; namely the object spoken about and the
speaker, and so a relation between
the two is always present. Even in
delusions, illusions and hallucinations, the situation is not changed; because
our immediate feelings are also un-speakable and not words.” [ pg. 61, ibid.]
[10] Pirsig,
ZMM, pg. 101, ‘This structure of concepts is formally called a hierarchy and
since ancient times has been a basic structure for all Western knowledge.’ The difference between a hierarchy and a
holarchy is this: A hierarchy is a static
arrangement of parts with no acknowledgement that each element on one level is
composed of all the parts of the level below it, and thus missing the
realization that each element is both a part and a whole. A holarchy is a dynamic continuum of hierarchical
arrangement of holons, those parts/wholes which acknowledges the dynamic
interrelationship of the levels.
[11] Ken
Wilber’s main work on this subject is ‘Sex, Ecology, Spirituality: The
Spirit of Evolution’, 1995, 2000.
Wilber wrote an ‘abridged’ version of this book when he published ‘A
Brief History of Everything’, 1996, 2000.
[12] Pirsig,
ZMM, pg. 12, ‘…a whole community of millions of living things living out
their lives in a kind of benign continuum.’
[13] This is
where Erich Harth comes in. [All citations
are from the Addison-Wesley Publishing Company 1993 edition of Harth’s
book.] Harth describes four attributes
of consciousness: ‘Perhaps the most striking of these are its selectivity,
exclusivity, chaining, and --I believe--unitarity…1. Selectivity. Not all neural activities enter
consciousness. Indeed, only very few
do. Some of these are sensations…We
also select into consciousness perception, the identified or otherwise analyzed
sensory events; and feelings, the less sensory and more cerebral transactions
(such as thought patterns that do not arise from specific and present sense
data, Instead, they are brewed from
stored and perhaps innate knowledge, often with a dash of hormonal seasonings. [from
pg127]) In this spirit, I would call
consciousness itself a feeling.
Finally, we may be conscious of our own consciousness in what has been
termed a potentially infinite regress.
Some hierarchy of conscious events seems to suggest itself here. 2.
Events are selected singly into consciousness. Being conscious of one thing prevents us from thinking of another
at the same time. This is what I mean
by exclusivity. The brain can
simultaneously carry out hundreds of tasks…But your consciousness can
accommodate only one sensation or perception or thought at a time….3. Chaining.
Items in consciousness are chained together, sometimes haphazardly,
sometimes following a plot, linked together by association and reasoning…4. Unitarity.
…Consciousness unifies both the subject and the object, both the person
who possess it and the contents of his or her conscious mind…Consciousness
makes it appear that a single individual…is the recipient of all sensations,
perceptions, and feelings, and the originator of all thoughts. [pg 139-140] I want to account here for some of the attributes of
consciousness, but I do not have a physicalist model for the feeling of being
conscious and therefore cannot claim to have an explanation of
consciousness.’ [Here I disagree
with the author. I believe he is
downplaying the significance of his own model.
I believe that once you recognize the Wilber realization of the Internal
aspect of any Holon Harth’s model becomes a model of consciousness.]…’My
model requires no separate monitoring system or ‘new form of sense organ,’ but
it accomplishes the same tasks through simple and plausible neural mechanisms
that are integral parts of the brain’s main sensory pathways.[pg. 141] …In
his picture, consciousness involves the cyclic reactivation of images or other
cognitive states through active reflection from higher order cerebral
centers. The chaining of images is
achieved by associative connections in the cortex, which triggers new concepts
or ideas to be fed into self-referent loops…My model further assumes that the
central, symbolic neural activities by themselves are not accompanied by
feelings of consciousness. Many such
activities must by going on simultaneously in all parts of the cortex. But subjective awareness results only when
specific activities are selected for elaboration and reinforcement by
self-referent channels…The normal visual pathway in humans consists, as we have
seen, of a series of feedback loops…Here the exclusive selection of specific
sensory features is accomplished by optimization processes…I have demonstrated
that the necessary neural mechanisms exist in the case of vision. Analogous neural circuitry exists in other
sensory pathways.[pg. 142.]…In the present, self-referent model that I
have proposed, there is a theater, and the action is on its stage is being
scrutinized by an observer. Unlike
previous attempts that have placed the theater at the highest level of cerebral
activity, I believe that the unification is located at the only place where
sensory patterns are still whole and preserve the spatial relations of the
original scene--at the bottom of the sensory pyramid, not at the top. It is there that all the sensory cues and
the cerebral fancies conspire to paint a scene. There is also an observer: it is the rest of the brain looking
down, as it were, at what it has wrought.
Consciousness, which arises in this self-referent process, not only
unifies the immediate sensory messages but also becomes the joiner of
everything around us, past, present and future.’ [pg. 144] …’Nonlinearity
combined with self-reference has produced unexpected and utterly astounding
results…’ [pg. 148]
[14] Pirsig,
ZMM, pg 79, ‘With a single stroke of analytic thought he [Phaedrus]
split the whole world into parts of his own choosing, split the parts and split
the fragments of parts, finer and finer and finer until he had reduced it to
what he wanted it to be. Even the
special use of the terms “classic” and “romantic” are examples of his
knifemanship.’
[15] Pirsig,
ZMM, pg82, ‘The application of this knife, the division of the world into
parts and the building of this structure, is something everyone does.’
[16] Pirsig,
ZMM, pg. 82, ‘All the time we are aware of millions things around us…aware
of these things but not really conscious of them unless we are predisposed to
see. We could not possibly be conscious
of these things and remember all of them because our mind would be so full of
useless details we would be unable to think.
From all this awareness we must select, and what we select and call consciousness
is never the same as the awareness because the process of selection mutates
it. We take a handful of sand from the
endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the
world. Once we have the handful of
sand, the world of which we are conscious, a process of discrimination goes to
work on it. That is the knife. We divide the sand into parts. This and that. Here and there. Black and
white. Now and then. The discrimination is the division of the
conscious universe into parts.’ [pg.
83] ‘Classical understanding is concerned with the piles and the basis for
sorting and interrelating them.
Romantic understanding is directed toward the handful of sand before the
sorting begins. Both ways are valid
ways of looking at the world…’
[17] At least
that is my current hypothesis and assertion.
[18] My own
revelation, which I had when I was young, of the understanding of the process
of Reality is this phrase: People shape, and are shaped by, ideas. My ideas and Pirsig’s mythos and the process
of mythos to logos which is mythos, is similar to my dialectic phrase of
shaping and being shaped by.
[19] I know that
in Lila, Pirsig says in chapter 9 that ZMM was a false start. ‘Phaedrus finally abandoned this
classic-romantic split as a choice for a primary division of the Metaphysics of
Quality.’[pg. 109 of the Bantam paperback ed.] This essay is in agreement that C-R is not the ‘primary’
division, but if Pirsig therefore meant to abandon and ignore ZMM, then he is
mistaken. You need ZMM to fully complete
an understanding of Reality. The more
human verbal tools/maps you have the better the chances of understand the
non-verbal territory!
[20] Ken Wilber
a great collector of maps and creative synthesizer of those maps is needed as a
further guide to the workings of Reality.
Ignore Wilber’s books at your own peril.
[21] ZMM, pg 284: ‘With Quality as a central
undefined term, reality is, in its essential nature, not static but
dynamic. And when you really understand
dynamic reality you never get stuck. It
has forms but the forms are capable of change.’ Here is the seed out of which will grow Lila.