DONNY ATTEMPTS TO RESPOND TO SEVERAL RECENT POSTS IN A SEMI-COHERENT WAY
Specificaly I'm responding to Don R., Jay, Bodvar, the shinny
alloy, The mad Irishman, and Rick.
***********************************************
DON R. wrote:
Consider these two statements:
a. Without a strong social level controlling biology, the
intellectual level
does not have
the necessary base from which to operate to seek and experience
Quality.
b. Without God (your choice) to control the flesh, the spirit can't
seek and
commune with God.
Virtually the same?
ME:
One big difference here: That idea about God controlling the flesh
is wraped-up in the Old Testiment-derived myth of the Fall -- nature as
fallen; the Earth as a bad, evil place of exile. The field of time is bad
and we all should want to be only in the trancendent place, beyond the
field of opposits.
Opposed to this idea of the Fall is 'Lila.' The trancendent
enters the field of time willingly -- as play (like actors dawning masks.
Nature is good. Live in harmony w/ it. Nature is all about hunting,
killing and eating. Fine. That's grand. Participate w/ joy. A vegitarian
is just someone whose never herd a plant scream. This idea about God
controlling the flesh -- to, say, the Native Amaricans, that's talking
non-sense.
DT Suzuki, the great Zen scholar, was once speaking about the
diffrences between Eastern and Western "religion" and he stoped and said
of the West: "God vs Man. Man vs God. Man vs nature. Nature vs. man. God
vs nature. Nature vs. God. Very funny religion."
JAY wrote:
My Moslem idea stems from what I see happening 40 -50 years from now. Our
educational institutions continue to teach in a way that leaves people in
a
lonely, valueless, morally ambiguous wasteland. LS contributors try to
reason out shootings at schools, but the problem is that they are
reasonless. I think these children are victims of a sense of physical and
spiritual boundrylesness, that allows intellect to lap over its sides with
ego, and anger, and a need for justification, that has obviously
disregarded
our biological patterns, there's blood everywhere. The Moslem faith, in
my
limited understanding, for some could be a plausible remedy, and people
collectively seek out remedies like a bunch of drunken somnambulists. I
am
probably much younger than you, and I'm seeing Moslem ethic creeping up
from
behind, as a static moral system ( with Dynamic apeal...) in a volatile
time. I see it in music. The banal, Public Enemy. The not so Banal, and
actually quite impressive Muslim Gauze with songs like "Our Heroin, Your
Arms". I see it in Moslem community leaders, (Where I live there is a
strong American Moslem presence.) Any kid (Somnambulist) who catches wind
of the Koran, is likely to hear about Jihad. Americans blew up a federal
building simply becuase they were pissed at the Govt. This thing, society
is fragil. This could be said of any religion's Moral system or Holy War
,
but the main difference here is that the Moslem faith holds Dynamic
Quality
for young westerners. I haven't seen any minarets around, lots of
Cathedrals, Churches...."
ME:
"The West shal shake the East awake, and you'll have the night 'till
morn." (Joyce)
I have lots of probems w/ this.
1) I have a bias against any proeizing religion. I don't like
anybody whose out to "win converts" and for the Christians and Muslems
that seems to be a very big deal. Yuck! :-(
2) All religions start w/ a set of forms appropreat to their
time and place -- zeitgiest and folkgiest. But when you take the language
and values of one time and place and push them over a different context --
you get some big problems. This is why all calls for "Gim'me that
old-time religion" are doomed to failure. What is required is nothing
less than death and rebirth -- the death of old forms and the birth of new
ones. This is always a painful process, but it's how the universe works --
always has been.
But to give you a concrete example of what i mean about the
"inapropreatness" of older/forgin forms: I was romantically involved w/ a
Hindu girl for over a year. The relationship had to come to a sudden and
painfull end, however, because when she was younger her family had
arranged for her to marry some other boy, and the time came (actually it
was over-due, she was 21 and unmaried -- an old-maid by Indian standerds)
and they brought him over from India she married him because that was her
dharma -- her cultural/family duty -- even though we were in love.
Now were was the problem here? Well, I turned to Joseph Campbell
-- where I usually turn when I need answers or guidence or comfort -- and
I find in *Transformations of the Myth through Time* and elsewhere he
talks about how the idea of love as Amore -- courtly love, between two
individuals that transends social codes and every other damn thing -- is a
Western shtikt. It first comes about w/ the Trubadors in Mideval
North-western Europe. They don't have that concept in the near-east,
middle-east or far-east. They have eros (sexual, biological love) and
agape (social love -- an Indian man I know told me: "You Americans marry
the girl you love, but we simply love the girl we marry.") but no Amore.
And so, here, I was a Westerner and my girlfriend grew-up here in
the West w/ this idea of Amore, such a major, major part of our mythology
(our books, our movies...), but here, also was this other cultural
system, which works fine in it's own context, but becomes totally
inapropreat here, beacause it completly lacks this idea.
One particular point were Islam would clash w/ Amarican values is
over freedom of the press. I'm not only thinking of Salmun Rushdi (a
clear case of the Social overiding Intellect paradime that Finton is in
such great support of -- Yea, that's what I want to see. More death
threats on intellectuals because they challange social dogma. That's a
great idea, Finton!), but I'm thinking of the press's interpritation of
recent West-vs-Iraq events. I know our journalists arn't completly
un-biased (Yes, I've read Chompsky), but Saddam Hussain literally
controlls the Iraqi press and they publish whatever he wants -- including
out-right lies. (Actually I hear his son owns Iraq's major national
newspaper.)
BODVAR wrote:
According to Pirsig the (Far) East has understood - and
resolved - the Dynamic/Static split long before it became an issue in
the West [still only in our small group :-(]. Buddhism solves the
dynamic/static problem ....to the Easterner ..... but Western mind
with its subject-object fixation cannot make it over the "gap".The
dynamic/static tends to become the idealist/materialist and seen thus
it messes it all up. Not even all of our group understand this either
(Hi Donny :-))
ME:
Bodvar, do you wish to debate which of the two of us has a greater
understanding of Eastern religion and mythology? I think you know the
answer. As a mater of fact, the last religious servace I did attend was a
Buddhist ceramony. I got to meet a woman who is a "medium" for a Buddha
who lived long ago in China. She "channals" him through a trance, and i
had the oppertunaty to talk w/ him/her through a translator (she was
Chinese). I have studied Eastern religion both through books and
first-hand, and I very much doubt that your grasp on any of them is
particuarrly deeper than mine, thank you very much, if I do say so myself!
Second point: I've never felt that the idealist-vs-materalist is
a very good philosological division. It's an apples-orranges division.
'Materialism' generally means "all that *really* exists is spacially
extended, has mass or energy." 'Idealism' on the other hand is a general
term for any philosophy that does not recognize any *real* ontological
seperation between knowing subjects and the objects they know -- both of
these collapse into something else like a transendent unity, or else are
mutaully derived from some other process. Hinduism and Buddhism *are*
Idealisms and this isn't just me saying this. I happen to know Anond
Malik, a scholler from India whose written many books and has been invited
to lecture at universities from England to Canada to Centrial Amarica. He
teaches Philosophy of Education here at my university. I should think that
this man, who *is* Indian and *is* a philosopher (or at the very least a
better than average philosophologist) probably knows more about this than
you (or I or RMP) and he freely catagorizes Buddhism and Hinduism this
way. Believe it or not, Bo, Buddist actually don't believe that S and O
are ontologically seperate. (Gasp!) In fact, most Eastern philosophies
tend to be Idealist in this respect. (Gasp! The horror!)
XCTO wrote:
Yes, I see that, and I also see that the Buddhism (especially Zen) is
based on
a very rigid Static Social Level. What I'm refering to is the very
caste-like
social systems in India and Japan which are just recently being changed
(even
in Japan).
ME:
That's only partly true that Zen and Buddhism are based on strong
social patterns. Actually Zen is a Japanese derivative of Ch'an Buddhism
which began in China w/ Bodidhrma. Ch'an grew from a mixture of Buddhism
and Taoism -- which tends to be very strongly anti-social. Taoism is
usually recognized as the counter-"movement" (it even lakes the social
organization to be a "movement" per-se) to Confucanism, which is very
social, very corperate. Most of the Chinese patriarchs of Zen are known
for their very anti-social deeds. (I remember the 6th patriarch who burned
all his holy books.)
Ch'an/Zen was imported to Japan in the 12-13th cen. by Essi and
Dogon. They were both "secular humanist" who were reacting *against* the
overly-enforced socially faciast Shintoism. It was, in fact, the secular
humanist aspects of Zen that attracted them -- it's *lack* of social
codes! (This lack can also be found in Korea where Ch'an migrated before
it went to Japan. The Koreans were vertual primatives compared to the
Chinese and Japanese.) Of corse the Japanese mind is a very
corperate/social one and so Zen adapted, but some "schools" of Zen, even
in Japan, retained it's old, Taoist, anti-social roots.
XCTO went on to say:
This restriction of freedom is close to anti-intellectualism
because it only allows it to a small group. I think it goes back to the
Eastern idea that no matter what we know, the words we say can never
describe
reality, let alone the ONE.
ME:
I'm not sure what relation the unnameability has, but I think you
mis-characterize Buddhism by saying it's only for the few. Teravada
Buddhism (the "Little Fairyboat") is only for the few -- those who are
willing to 'die' to the world -- to put on their burrial shroud and go "as
if to the grave" leaving behind wife, children and society. (The 3rd
temptation of The Buddha was, in fact, dharma -- duty!)
But there is also Mahiyana Buddhism -- the "Big Fairyboat." This
is the big procelizing arm of Buddhism which spread all across China and
Indo-China and Japan. Mahiyana is a very interesting procelizing religion
because, while other other procelizing traditions try to adapt the local
culture to their codes and digmas, Mahiyana adapted it's codes and dogmas
to the local color -- the local symbols, myths, etc. Kwan'yin is a man in
some places and a woman in others. No big deal. These are understod by the
Buddhist to be symbols pointing you towards something, and not the final
thing itself. They grasp well the idea that Pirsig brings up in ZMM: Truth
is always alagory! Metaphor.
"Man's reach should exceed his grasp; else what's a metaphore." (McLuhan)
More XCTO:
My thought was that Islam has
nothing to do with improving Intellectual Quality. It can very well
improve
Social Quality if America could dynamically add some of it's ideals to our
society. But who knows anything about Islam? What are you going to do,
watch
"Raiders of the Lost Ark"'s Egypt scene or "Ishtar?" What we see about
Islam
and what is true is the same as what we see on popular TV and what is true
about America.
ME:
What are you going to do? Well, if you were intrested in Islam
you could always read about it. (Novel thought!) I've read about Islam
and I also have lots of opportunities to learn about it because there is
alarge Islamic population here at the University of Tennessee and they
have frequent education/out-reach programs, breaking down steriotypes. I
also had a friend for a while who was a citizen of Iran but I've lost
touch w/ her.
Anyway, the point I'm making is: It's a statistical fact that
Islam is the fasting growing religion both in the US and in the world, so
even given the occasional Iraq war, I don't think we need to worry about
"spreading the good word." Islam can take care of itself very well.
FINTON wrote:
You wanna see what a society with total individual freedom is like, then
read
Lord of the Flies by William Golding. Or check out the behaviour of a
three year old
throwing a tantrum. The infant is a demagogue. I do not mince words. If
God had not
cleverly designed it so that infants were considerably smaller than us,
then we would
be living in a dictatorship of the kindergarden.
ME:
You've already been corected on this point, but I'd like to add to
it. *Lord of the Flies*, which happens to be one of my favorite books
(Did yu know that the U2 album *Boy* was partly inspired by LotF?), has
nothing to do w/ what happens when intellsctual values dominate social
values. Actually Piggy's glasses in LotF represent Reason (they are used
to make fire, etc) and they're distruction is a key turning-point in the
book. The book is about what happens when Reason is removed from society
and it degrades all the way bake to a "primative" state.
And, also, kindergardners act that way becouse they haven't yet
gotten they're biological values sync-ed to social value rhythms, not
because they are intelectuals. I've never met a 3-year old intellectual.
So, Finton, which intellectual values don't you like? Honesty?
Clarity? (obviously.) Objectivity? Should we -never- be objective? Not
in the labratory? Not in the jurry box? We already know you're against
intellectual freedoms like freedom of press or freedom of religion. (Do
you kill Cathlics or Prodestants in your spare time?)
I supposes you support the return to domination by the social
values of celebrity, fads and trends, mob rule, dogma, money and social
statuss. Do whatever Gates says. Think whatever Murdok tells you to think.
Dress like Oprah. Follow the lemmings. Gee, Finton, i think that's a
swell idea. The world was such a better place back in the
Victorian-Edwardian days before those damn Enlightenment values started
messing things up. I think Emperial-ism and cultural darwinism were great
ideas. Why don't we go bring the Good Word to our "little brown brothers."
Finton, I love you're writting style (and gratuitus quotes from
Leonard Cohen) but sometimes it seems like you have no idea what you're
thinking/saying, and you're just writting for the sake of "hearing
yourself talk." Maybe that works in a Zen monastary a poetry recitle, or a
psycho-analyst office, but it dosen't always help around here -- an
e-mail-based philosophy forum. Just a thought, o-kay? Please consider
yourself Intellectually free to make your own judgment -- so long as it
doesn't completly over-ride social structure and drop us into
unintelligable chaos. thanks.
JOHNATHAN M. wrote:
Another thing Bo, I find it irritating to see "ZMM" without the "A" for
Art.
ME:
Pirsig, in his letters, uses the "ZMM" abriviation, and I think
most of us have just followed suit. Sorry if that bugs you. (Can't imagine
why!?)
In responce to RICK:
Rick, I agree w/ your identification of Finton's confusion, but I
don't think we need a new level. Think of it this way:
1) laws/values of physics (INCLUDING quantum mechanics!!)
2) law of the jumgle (Darwinian values of survivle & procreation)
3) Values of... WHAT!?
4) Man's laws. Social values. Money, celbrity, fashions...
5) The rules (values) of formal, Aristotilan logic and the scientific
method.
See? You're 'Mind' level is very much out of place. I think RMP did
rather well w/ 4 levels.
And I don't think we can just say, 'Mind is a part of the
biological level' because mind -- or "just thinking-itself" (as if there
were such a thing) -- can be a part of biological, social or
intellectual. I don't think "just thinking-itself" has any place in the
MOQ; right, Bodvar? "Thought" is one mode of expression of values that
can be Bio, Soc, or Int. and it's best just to leave it alone. It carries
-such- Cartisan Mind-Body baggage w/ it. Yuck! :-( Boooooooo.
Cripes! What a long post.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST