Hello Bo,
>> I think there's a lot of new ideas hitting us at once in Lila. Maybe
>> Pirsig tries to fast-foward to the conclusions to fit his ideas into
>> his publisher's recommended book-length. Maybe haughtiness is
>> sometimes just a preemptive strike against rejection. And sure, maybe
>> a man's entitled to a bit of pride in his life's labour of love...?
...
> The "haughtiness" that Angus finds with Pirsig I don't see
I wanted to be diplomatic; I don't see that Pirsig was being that haughty
either.
>> In terms of literary quality, Lila did seem to be more laboured and
>> stilted than ZAMM, perhaps because the subject matter was inherently
>> less Dynamic in an absolute sense.
>
> .....and with the rest of what you wrote ...naturally :-)
:)
> Over to your objections regarding the static level system - you said:
>
>> I don't fully accept the levels either, but because of what I perceive
>> to be an oversimplification of its hierarchy. For example, religion
>> seems to get shoved into the 'Social' level. But many a sincere
>> faith-practioner will tell you that religion is something that is
>> invested as much in one's intellect as one's Social interactions - and
>> without detracting from one's ability to pursue 'pure' Intellectual
>> matters.
>
> Problems occur when starting to sort things and phenomena that
> way, as if there are four containers - and then asking what goes
> where. For example back in the opening phase of this discussion
> there was a mile-long thread about where a "throne" belongs; as a
> material artifact or a social symbol? This exercise is useless and
> and irrelevant to the static value part of the MoQ.
I accept your point. That's why I have also started to think of levels in
terms of sets: a throne (sorry if this brings up low-quality memories for
you, heheh:), to me belongs in the overlapping part of the circles/sets of
Inorganic and Social levels; there doesn't have to be an 'either/or'
situation. Does that make sense?
(upon rereading, I realise it could be interpreted that I was referring to
the pigeonholing of faith-practioners, rather than religion)
> Religion? The
> Catholic Church with laboriously worked out comments to dogma
> and a Vatican Library with miles of books may sound as
> "intellectual" as a University, but see it as a refinement of cave
> man's "explanation" of origin and destination. It was clearly
> important for the tribe's cohesion. No community can exist without
> a common myth ...and that is the way we must regard religion.
But this seems to shove 'religion' in its entirety back into the Social
level again, to the exclusion of Intellect, which is what I meant
originally. As you said yourself, things shouldn't have to be pigeonholed as
if the levels were seperate containers.
> But ....when some Greek thinkers started to doubt the truth
> (objectivity) of the myths the Q-Intellect was born. THAT is the
> Intellectual level, not the ability to think or literacy or intelligence.
You've cut right to the point of something that is not entirely clear to me,
and I apologise if this has already been resolved in this forum:
Is SOM equivalent to the Intellectual level,
or is SOM the original 'independence movement' for the liberation of
Intellect from Society?
In other words, is SOM only one subset of Intellect, or is SOM synonomous
with Intellect?
If it is synonomous with Intellect, then that would appear to mean that
MoQ is an offspring of SOM. It is my understanding that MoQ is a radical
departure from SOM, not a subset of it, and that MoQ is yet part of
Intellect.
This means that there are at least two static patterns of Intellect. If
there are two, is there a logical reason why there cannot be more? Is there
a reason why - if there are other static patterns of Intellect - that these
cannot be coeval with, and exist in a mostly symbiotic relationship with
certain Social patterns? Even a
> caveman's "explanation" of origin and destination
IMHO is _not_ simply a function of social cohesion, but an attempt to
answer the "whyness" of the universe.
For example, in the Boyne Valley of Ireland, the Newgrange passage-tomb
is perfectly aligned so that every winter solstice for the past 3,500 years,
the dawning sun shines down a long corridor to illuminate the back chamber
wall. This wall, like many of the satellite stones that encircle the
so-called tomb, is covered with strange geometric shapes: zigzags, waves,
circles, lozenges and shapes that suggest the sun, moon and stars in both
calendrical and fantastic formats, of whose significance we can only guess.
Absolutely, I believe that these structures and symbols were of paramount
social importance to organise it's agricultural society (e.g. as a calendar)
and speak of a tremendous social cohesion - the vast organisational,
engineering feats and use of manpower.
But to suggest that these achievements were only for the organisation of
society is, I think, to do a grave injustice to the culture that produced
it. This seems to suggest that the only purpose of any notion of
transcendence, or cosmic understanding offered by any religion, is almost as
some sort of trick or subterfuge to control people's biological patterns
only.
If people collaborate for sustenance and protection, is it not also true
that the search for universally applicable meaning in an uncertain world,
can also be a powerful motivating force for solidarity? (Destructive cults
can use this to get their hooks into people too - but just because something
has an Intellectual component, doesn't mean that it is always of high
Quality).
Why _must_ we regard Religion as necessarily excluding an Intellectual
component? Even if that is how one chooses to define it, the definition
would seem to contradict the experience of many.
Also, if religion - an organised response to the world - must always be
of a lower quality level than intellect; is visual art - as an often
disorganised response to the world - of an even lower quality? I know the
answer is no, that art can be pre-intellectual; can't there be a
preintellectual component in religion too?
(A working definition of Intellect I use is:
"The organised search for self-consistent understanding, that transcends
all local mythos' and linguistics." Am I wrong in any way?)
>> (I notice too sometimes, that some people who claim to be
>> above and beyond religion/social patterns have a blind spot, and
>> harbour values and judgements which cannot be derived from Intellect
>> alone, yet they use Intellect to rationalise their values as if they
>> were.)
>
> Exactly, it's an important tenet of the MoQ that all levels are born
> of the parent level. Q-intellect isn't a free-floating entity, but out of
> the social level. Hope I understand you correctly?
I think we are in agreement on what you said there, certainly.
Good luck,
- Oisín
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:33 BST