Rick,
RICK:
>Hey Glenn,
>The more I think about it, the more I really like this reading...
I like it, too.
>
>GLENN
>> 2) pupils widen involuntarily and unpredictably in all people. When this
>> happens, the light goes in your brain, but before it gets to the
>perception
>> centers in the visual cortex, it is cut off if your objectivity is high.
>If
>> objectivity is low, the D. effect is seen. DQ will manifest itself...
>
>RICK
>I read over the passage again looking for clues that might further confirm
>or refute this interpretation. I didn't find anything dispositive, but I
>did focus in on this...
>
>PIRSIG
>...But nobody sees it because the cultural definition of what is real and
>what is unreal filters out the Dharmakaya light from twentieth-century
>American "reality" just as surely as time is filtered out of Hopi reality,
>and green-yellow differences mean nothing to the Natchez.
>
>RICK
> What he says about the Natchez is helpful because color is also a light
>based phenomenon. Using your interpretation above, it would seem that if I
>placed two crayons in front of a man from the Natchez culture, the different
>frequencies would enter his brain, but before they made it to the perception
>center in the visual cortex, they would be cut out by cultural definitions
>of what colors do and don't exist. Therefore, the green/blue distinction
>would simply never manifest itself in the Natchez's field of vision.
Right.
> What this suggests is that there nothing more mystical about Dharmakaya
>than there is about the difference between green and blue!!!
Well, I don't know how far you can carry the similarities. Like I said in
my previous post, the mystical stuff has to do with the significance he
sees in particular animate objects that emit the light, like Lila and the
cat and the tiger. I think if he saw the light like I did at the eye
doctors, he might say I saw the D. light but in my case there was no
'dynamic auspiciousness' in the episode. If a Natchez Indian suddenly sees
a frog as the color we call 'green', it's not likely that he will see
any mystic significance to this, unless it starts following him around :)
>That is, every
>Natchez may see Dharmakaya, but only the least 'objective' of them would see
>the differences between green and blue. When a Natchez 'let go' of his
>static patterns he wouldn't suddenly see Dharmakaya, he would suddenly see
>the difference between green and blue. He would try to describe the
>difference to other Natchez who would say it was all in his head. He would
>point to the abundant references to both green AND blue in the writings of
>other cultures (like ours). He would point to artwork from other cultures
>for evidence of the different use of the colors. He would be a 'Natchez
>Phaedrus'.
> A Natchez who saw the Dharmakaya light would probably seem unspectacular
>to other members of his cultures... but if he saw the difference between
>green and blue... he would be a mystic.
Yes, I think you've got the general gist of Pirsig's thinking on this.
It's not clear to me how you could lower the objectivity of the Natchez
(any more than they already are) in order to see blue/green differences
(or why our high objective culture has no problem with blue/green),
but maybe Pirsig thinks the problem isn't with high objectivity in their
culture, but something else. The solution to their problem may be as
simple as the green-flash, where someone from outside their culture just
needs to tell them, "go out and see it!". It's anybody's guess, isn't it?
>RICK
>PS
>I can't do much with the bit about the Hopi's because I have a really hard
>time understanding what he means when he says they have no concept of time.
I'll say. But I have a hard time believing the Natchez' problem with
blue-green, too. It doesn't seem like there would be any cultural
reason for this lack of visual color discrimination. The only reasonable
explanation for this, assuming it's true at all and not bad science, is
that the tribe has a genetic disposition to blue-green color blindness.
Pirsig is happy to believe that perception and cognition are determined
by the vocabulary of whatever language one happens to speak, because this
fits in with his idea that the world, as we perceive it, is socially
constructed (that we are essentially brain-washed from a young age to
believe in subjects and objects).
Thanks for chatting.
Glenn
--__________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/
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 - 16:01:57 BST