Bodvar and group: Uh,oh. Its seems like one misunderstanding piled on top of
another. I'll try to untangle some of it. I think most of the confusion is
due to the difference in languages and very little of it is philosophical.
Anyway....
Pirsig:
> "Our scientific description of nature is always culturally derived."
bo...
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
new dmb...
So far, so good. I'd included these two quotes simply because they say
essentially the same thing and support each other nicely. (I threw the quote
about Descartes for the same reason; to show that Pirsig insists over and
over that all intellectual descriptions are culturally derived.) But the
second one seems more important because it suggests that the intellectual
system (SOM) that fails to recognize its dependence on the social level was
a needed step. It was a political battle for independence, first against the
myths and gods, then "the church" and more recently against the various
reactionary movements. But once this is resolved (I'm not so sure that it is
yet resolved) then we have to go back and develop an intellectual system
that DOES recognize its dependence on the social level, a system that DOES
see that it MUST be socially derived. That's what the MOQ does.
Bo hadn't yet seen my new comments when he follow Pirsig's quote with...
......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.
new dmb...
I honestly don't understand what you mean. I guess "2 Mars" means the 2nd of
March, but I only speak English. More than that, there is an "accent" in
your grammer that makes it very tough to know what you're really saying.
I've read it over and over, but can't make any sense of it. Please excuse my
ignorance.
old dmb....
> Notice how the "absolute ontological distinctions" of the Near East
> resembles the 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.
Bo...
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.
New dmb....
In the older post I wasn't talking about SOM per se, I was only trying to
point to specific aspects of the culture that bear a striking resemblance to
it. I was trying to show where SOM came from. But again, I honestly can't
understand what you're saying. Its that darn language problem again. I
don't understand what was confronted with what? I don't understand your
challenge either. It seems like an impossible question. And the main thrust
of what I've been saying is to get at what intellect is AFTER SOM, after the
political battle is resolved.
BO...
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 ;-).
New dmb...
Well, OK. I'm fixated. But at least Pirsig is with me in this. He sees no
level beyond the intellect either. (DQ is beyond, but its not a level and we
can't use it to describe anything because its beyond words too.) Until vast
amounts of time pass and some as yet uncreated 5th level arrives in the
world I think you should be fixated on it too. Again, I'm trying to get at
the 3rd level values from which our intellectual descriptions are derived.
I'm trying to get on that dependence that Pirsig keeps insisting upon. It
seems to me that this is a perfectly legitimate project for this discussion
group. It seems like a very MOQish task. Here's the thing - we agree that
the MOQ is beyond SOM. Beyond all the frustrating misunderstandings, we
really disagree where the MOQ belongs. You say its beyond the intellect and
I say its not. Pirsig is with me on that too. His MOQ has no 5th level.
That's your invention. SOLAQI narrows the 4th level to the extent that a 5th
level seems needed, but that's the mistake; SOLAQI make its too narrow and
creates problems that don't really exist. Toss out SOLAQI and 4 levels are
enough.
Bo...
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".
New dmb...
Myths are a good way to get at the innermost values of the 3rd level, as
Pirsig says in specific reference to Campbell's MASKS OF GOD. To say they
are equal to each other would be too narrow and would cause problems. Yes,
its not too hard to see metaphysics in some of the myths, not in the sense
of a full-blown philosophical system because that is an intellectual
description, but they're rich enough that we might derive such a system from
the myths. Please remember that it is SOM that sees cultural values as "old
religious nonsense", as some kind of bad, archaic science. Pirsig's MOQ
insists that this is the parent of intellect and ought NOT be dismissed. It
has to be respected for what it is. Its not bad science and its not
something that should be thoughtlessly clung to as the Victorians did
either.
old dmb...
> 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.
Bo...
...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.
New dmb....
If Pirsig insists over and over again that our scientific description of
nature is always culturally derived, why would he develop a scientific
description (the MOQ) that isn't culturally derived. Wouldn't he be
contradicting himself? He says its impossible to do anything else, no? Yes,
the roots go way back, back into the myths, into the mythos, back into the
innermost values of the 3rd level. That's where the MOQ has to be derived
according to his won rules, no?
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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