Hi DMB and Group.
>From the first "oldest idea" instalment where you cite Pirsig:
> "Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived."
Here Pirsig ascertains that no level is independent of its parent. At this stage "science"
may be seen as an i-pattern and "culture" a s-pattern, but here ......
> "Once this political battle is resolved, the MOQ can then go back and
> re-ask the question, Just exactly how independent is science, in fact,
> from society? The answer it gives is, 'not at all'. A science in which
> social patterns are of no account is as unreal and absurd as a society
> in which biological patterns are of no account. It's an impossiibility."
> P299
......he speaks about society, and if what builds on society is intellect then "science" is
the latter day manifestation of Intellect. Not this or that theory, but the value of
(searching for) an OBJECTIVE reality independent of what we SUBJECTIVELY think.
This basic "attitude" has spawned all intellect's virtues and manifested as described in
ZAMM with the Greeks, but may have had other manifestations - as in your 2 Mars
message.
> Notice the "absolute ontological distinctions" of the Near East
> resemble absolute ontological distinctions of SOM? The two streams of
> culture give our Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian culture its shape. There is
> an underground current in the Judeo/Christian stream too, but Campbell
> describes the pagan branch here.
At this stage SOM had little to do with our "scientific description of nature", but the
Greek search for "what is imperishable in the affairs of men.." shows the attitude and
the Middle Eastern God/World divide was the first notion of a godless, dead nature: an
object for study. And these new trends grew out of the myths of old ....Intellect grew out
of Society, but when confronted with this ...no way SOM is just another intellectual
pattern. Now I challenge you to tell me what Intellect was before SOM.
I am puzzled how you can have this deep understanding of the
social level (and some lucid moments regarding Intellect ;-)
> The MOQ is an intellectual description and some of what is describes is
> beyond the intellect,
...can be so blind to intellect's role and write:
> but the description itself can't go past the
> intellectual level. There are no such things as descriptions beyond the
> intellect. Its just not possible.
"Description" isn't the intellect's hallmark, the cave-dwellers
surely described their mythological reality and language will follow evolution beyond
Intellect. But notice: No level recognize the upper so intellect-value-fixated people will
never recognize any gropings beyond, only the pioneers will ..immodestly yours ;-).
One other thing David: Do you regard the Campbellian
"myth" as the social level of the MOQ or ...? At times it sounds
that way at other it goes way beyond and assumes a metaphysics
role of it own. For instance you say that Pirsig says that the MOQ is derived
from "the old religious nonsense".
> if it is to be a valid improvement his MOQ has to be derived from the
> social level. It has to be an intellectual system that's aware of it
> dependence on the social level and the implied limitations.
...but this is wrong. What he is out to demonstrate (in the RT of
LILA) is that the Quality Idea (Reality=Quality) has its roots way back, but the Quality
Metaphysics is something else. Saying that the system itself has
its root in one of its lesser parts is impossible ...Wim was on the point
of saying this, but let it pass.
Thanks for reading.
Bo
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