Hi David,
I very much enjoyed this:
> The difference
> between the social and intellectual values is just as important as the
> difference between rocks and organisms. One of the major problems with SOM
> is that it cannot see this distinction. Like yourself, SOM treats myths as
> nothing more than bad ideas, or low grade intellect. But that's like
saying
> that rocks are low grade organisms. Myths are not the same thing as ideas
at
> all. Now, just to be perfectly clear about this, there are scholars and
> intellectuals who are engaged in comparative mythology and literature.
They
> (and we) can examine religions and myths from a intellectual perspective,
> but this is not supposed to blur the distinction. Its supposed to sharpen
> and clarify the difference.
I was wondering if you could provide a bit more info about the scholars and
intellectuals you mention. I'm familiar with Campbell and Jung, but are
there any who see myths in a MoQ-compatible way (ie as social blocks to play
with, not intellectual). I'd like to investigate these things further.
Sam
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 6:26 PM
Subject: RE: MD Oldest idea
> Wim and all MOQers:
>
> Wim said to DMB...
> We still seem to disagree what myths can learn us about the social level.
I
> hold that myths are primitive intellectual patterns of values, you seem to
> see them as social patterns of values. But aren't myths sets of ideas and
> sets of ideas intellectual patterns of values?
>
> DMB says back...
> First of all, arrrrgh! (That's me pulling my hair out.) The difference
> between the social and intellectual values is just as important as the
> difference between rocks and organisms. One of the major problems with SOM
> is that it cannot see this distinction. Like yourself, SOM treats myths as
> nothing more than bad ideas, or low grade intellect. But that's like
saying
> that rocks are low grade organisms. Myths are not the same thing as ideas
at
> all. Now, just to be perfectly clear about this, there are scholars and
> intellectuals who are engaged in comparative mythology and literature.
They
> (and we) can examine religions and myths from a intellectual perspective,
> but this is not supposed to blur the distinction. Its supposed to sharpen
> and clarify the difference.
>
> Wim wrote....
> For me all political positions are located at the 4th level even if they
are
> promoting less independence of the 4th level from the 3rd level. Promoting
> less independence of the 4th level from the 3rd level is not necessarily
> less moral than promoting more independence. We need some balance to
> preserve a healthy social foundation for higher level patterns of values
and
> the balance may be disturbed in some circumstances in the direction of too
> much independence for intellectual patterns of values.
>
> DMB responds....
> Again, you have collapsed the distinction between levels in exactly the
way
> that SOM does. Pirsig says this confusion is what dominates all talk about
> morality and society. This is the thing that Pirsig is trying to clear up
by
> making the distinction between social and intellectual values.
>
> "Unless you separate these two levels of moral codes you get a paralyzing
> confusion as to whether society is moral or immoral. That paralyzing
> confusion is what dominates all thoughts about morality and society
today."
> P307
>
> DMB, the bald.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 - 16:02:02 BST