DONNY TRYS TO REASURE THE L.S. THAT HE'S NEITHER AS HOSTILE NOR AS
"BRAGGING"...
...after saying a few words on Bo's behafe about SOTAQI, or SOLAQI, or
whatever it is now. (Spicifically this is for Rick, Don R. and Finton.)
********************************
But before I go there, I'd also like to respond to Rick, because I
think Bodvar hasn't yet and has "withdrawn from the field" for a while
(actually I think he has a gallery show he's getting ready for).
RICK asked Bodvar:
When you say "Subject/Object Logic", is
this just another way of refering to the perecption of reality through
dualism and opposites? I.E. We split up Mind and matter (out there or in
here), good and bad, up and down, light and dark, wrong and right, in and
out, etc, etc, etc ---
Or are you refering to Aristotealian style Logic?
Rick, I think the answer is "Yes." Bodvar has objected to the term
"Aristotilan logic" because he feels that's giving too much credit to one
guy, for something which is, of course, a SOCIAL manifestation. This is
the definition that ('least last we talked about it) Bodvar and I are
leaning towards. (However I tend to emphisize as well the Enlightenment
values of -- especially -- objectivity -- ie. freedom from personal/social
gain, social stattus or social pressure -- because it's w/ this that
Inttelect becomes a level of it's own and not just a tool in the hands of
society, which Aristotilian logic was for it's first 1500 years.)
HOWEVER, it should be noted that this is not exactly RMP's
definition of "IntPoVs." In LILA, he clearly writes about the IntPoVs of
non-western cultures (like Native Americans) and he describes "insanity"
as abandoning your cultures IntPoVs and setting up your own, personal
IntPoVs. Pirsig uses the metaphor of a person in a movie theater. I find
all this solupsistic, Cartisan, ghost in the machine, psychological talk
disturbing, misleading and un-usefull. I say, (and i THINK Bo is w/ me on
this) individuals can't have IntPoVs; IntPoVs come out of a particuler
type of social dialogue known as *prooving* -- As in: "Donny, stop
bragging and prove it!" A truth that cannot circulate is like a monny
that can't cirrculate; it has NO VALUE. So we are not going 100% w/ LILA
on this. (See, even the Guardian of the MoQ is open to change if it seems
reasonable. :) )
And since Glove brought it up, I'll also add another difference
between Bo and my picture of the Soc-Int levels: I tend to agree w/ Glove
that the S-O split is primarily social. I think this ability to
distinguish between person and non-person/mere thing is what gave rise to
society out of BioPoVs. I've suggested this schema to help straighten
things out:
Bio = Object-consciousness (can distinguish between I and This, me and
not-me) NOTE: not all organisms possess O-con.
Soc = Subject-Object Consctiosness (distinguish between a person and a
non-person or an impared/stigmatized person like an ex-con or mental
patient, or Finton [just kidding])
Int = S-O logic (this is a set of rules for how to analytically cut-up
reality w/ your scalple and divide it into hierarchys [see ZMM])
And, I'll also state for the record that (being the most
multicultural person I know) I'm not yet totally comfertable resigning
InTPoVs to the "Western European tradition as innherated from Greece."
This seems rather problematical and Pirsig may be right about there being
non-western Int-PoVs after all.
As yet, SOLAQI still has it's pro's and its con's, and is open to
improvement.
RICK, in his responce to my last post says:
As for the rest of the "Moral Mess" page, I agree with many of the points
you make, but I can't help but detecting a good deal of hostility in
there.
For example, I'm not sure precisely what you and Bodvar were arguing
about, but I don't see how bragging about your "superior" knowledge of Zen
and Buddhism and Eastern religion can logically add to any argument.
After
all, it's a common rhetorical proof that the source of a message has
nothing to do with its accuracy (see ZAMM for details). You don't need to
know anything about the formal history of Zen or Philosophy to say
intellegent and accurate things about Zen and Philosophy. Having all
these
great credentials doesn't mean what you say is more accurate. If this was
the way arguments were decided why would any of us side with Robert Pirsig
over someone like Oxford metaphysician Galen Strawson? I'm not trying to
deride anyone I'm just saying ---why don't we just stick to logic and
consistency here, and leave the diplomas on the wall.
ME:
Rick, don't fret about the hostility. Bodvar and I actually enjoy
this. I can say, at least for my part, that we enjoy these debates so much
because of this "edge" in the air between us. But Bo is a great guy, and
I assure there is nothing personal going on here. (I think of him as the
kindly Norwegion uncle I never had... or wanted. ;-) )
I agree w/ you 100% that it does nothing to simply say, "Look I
know more than you do about X so I get the final word!" That was not my
intention. My intention is to try and draw Bo out to fight, because so
far he hasn't done that. I have, in the past, probably before you joined
the LS, Rick, posted at least two post that i can think of in which I gave
the definition of "Idealism" as I use it, my sorces for precidents of
using the word this way, and shown that is logically contradictory to say
that the Moq is not an Idealism. "Idealism" primarily means the rejection
of the S-O, "in-here"/"out-there" dichotomy. A (or the) major trait of
Idealism is that the knowing subject and its known object are two facits
of the same thing -- like two sides of one coin. Now Hegel (arguably the
most famous Western Idealist) argued that most philosophers (Kant in
particular) have succede in colapsing the object into the subject
("showing that the O is the S's awareness of itself") but have failed to
complete the other half of the movement by colapsing S into O ("The
subject is the object's awareness of itself").
For the most part Bodvar has not responded to this. What responce
I have got has not come close to either (1) showing that my definition of
"Idealism" is wrong (which would be a pretty neat trick since words mean
nothing more than what we collectivly use them to mean, and i can give
instances of use of "Idealism" in this manner) or (2) demonstrating that
the MoQ is the -only- metaphysical system in world history which fits this
definition (a mamoth philosological undertaking requiring a God-awful
amout of reserch and at least 200 pages to acomplish) or (3) show that the
MOQ does not fit my definition of idealism (which he won't do because that
would mean that the MOQ does -not- recognize the singularity of S and O --
and thus, by definition, the MOQ is a SOM).
If you've missed all this in the past then I can se how my last
post might seem like empty rhetoric w/ no logic behind it. But the truth
is, for the most part Bo has ignored my protest and decided that, rather
than answering me in a logical fashion, he will simply go on droping my
name as someone who, being a self-profesed idealist, obviously has failed
to grasp the basic meaning of the MOQ. (He has, in past posts, doubted
that I've even read LILA much less understood it.) And now he drops my
name to imply that I have misunderstood Buddhism and Eastern philosophy as
well. Bodvar already knows I've studied this stuff, and I don't believe
(most of the time) that he thinks I'm a complet idiot even when he implies
it w/ his posts, but I couldn't let that go by w/o responding. Mostly, as
I said, I'm just trying to draw him out (or at the very least get him to
stop droping my name like that w/ nothing behind it), but there's not
nearly as much hostility here as you might have thought, and I think Bo
knows that too.
Actually what this is all about is a VERY fundamental difference
between Bo and I. My experience was this: I read ZMM and then LILA at the
very start of my intellectual journey. I set out to study other
philosophies and religions to see if I could find connections and
simmilarities -- supporting ideas -- not the exact same ideas, but
distinct similarities. I found many. Then I found many more. Much of the
world's mythology and religion (IMHO) adds-up to various local or
personal "takes" (or views) on the same elementery ideas and insights.
Bodvar's experience was this: He discovered Pirsig much closer to
the end of his intellectual carear and saw it as a refutation of
everything he'd seen before that. So, for Bo, Pirsig is a totaly unique
phenominon -- somthing w/o precident that just came out of the wilderness
where no one had treaded before.
Ultimatly, my view is right for me and Bo's view is right for him.
We're the blind men arguing over what an elephant is (You know the
story?), but we can't help it. Our experiences are soooooo different.
DON R. writes:
> This idea about God
> controlling the flesh -- to, say, the Native Amaricans, that's talking
> non-sense.
>
Non-sense to you, perhaps. I know many, and know of many more, reasonable
people who think otherwise. The number of physicists who subscribe to a
"religious" view of the cosmos is legion.
ME:
Don, I'm not sure where you got the impresion that I am somehow
anti-religion!!?? Actually I've spent a great deal of time studying the
myths, religions, and symbols of people all over the world. It's very much
who I am, and it's entierly what my art is about: the relationship between
spirituality and culture (the universal questions and insigts, and how
they are clothed diferently by various peoples). Somehow you seem to be
under the impresion that i think no reasonable person could be religious!?
I can't figure out how you got that from my post, but I'm sorry for
whatever misled you.
DON goes on to say:
I have no idea what specifically
you're referring to vis a' vis Native Americans - all the various tribes I
know of have some creation myth and some concept of a supreme deity.
Different
metaphor, that's all.
ME:
Yes, they do all have various creation myths. I've read a lot of
them. So far as i know, nowhere in Native American mythology dose one
find the idea of a Fall or Fallen Nature -- the world as a bad place, a
place of exile from paradise where all we can do is wait and pray for the
Kingdom Come. For the Native American mind (and, say, the Taoist) nature
-is- pardise. There was no Fall, no exhile, and no redemption in Kingdom
Come. In Gnostic Christianty, Jesus is recorded (by Thomas) as saying,
"The Kingdom of Heaven will not come as if by expectation. Men will not
say, 'it is here; it is here.' The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the
earth NOW and men do not see it." (My emphisus on 'now') That's sheer
Buddhism! But that's what's absent in "main-streem" Judism, Christianity
and Islam. You can find it in Cabala (Jewish msticism). You can find it
in Gnostacism and Suphi (Christaian and Islamic mysticism, respectivly),
but you won't find it in Sunday school.
Back to Don:
> 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."
>
I've not read much of Suzuki. I suspect his contempt arises from his
knowledge of popular Christianity, just as some of us who haven't delved
into the religion may find Hinduism to be "funny". Different metaphors.
ME:
Yikes!! I don't think so, Don. I don't think Sazuki was
contemptuous of anything. I think he made a humerous statement that was
also an effective teaching tool. He highlighted a basic cultural
difference w/ respect to religion.
W/ the idea of 'lila' (put in MOQ terms): DQ becomes sq willingly.
There is no Fall from grace. The a-temporal mystery enters the field of
time in order to experience itself, because experience is always in terms
of pairs of opposits (past and future, up and down, good and bad, me and
you...). But sq isn't bad. It's great. The goal in Buddhism (and this is
what Sazuki was getting at) is to put you at-one w/ the universe -- you
identify w/ all things. But if nature/the world/the field of time (sq) is
Fallen... then you do -not- identify w/ it. Nature is bad and you must be
cleansed of it.
Of these two views I think it's safe to say Pirsig is a supporter
of 'lila' -- not the Fall. And that was my point. Nothing more.
DON:
Zen, philosophy, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, animism and a
whole host of other "isms" are, ultimately, attempts to pin down reality.
ME:
YES!!!
RICK wrote in a later post:
This very man once said to me, "Once
you have a degree from Harvard, then we can talk." I was naturally
outraged.
ME:
As well you should be! That man is an idiot. It is very much my
view that we should all feel free to think for ourselves and screw the
"experts." It's even my opinion that the LS should use LILA as a
*starting point* for discussion of our own ideas, we should not dedicate
ourselves to explocation of the text or trying to find ways to "win
converts" to Pirsig's sytem. I hope you never thought I was in the same
catagory as "Professor Harvard!" Ouch! You wound me. I consider myself
as fr from that as I can get.
And for FINTON:
No long message here, man. Just that I don't think you and I are
as much against one-another as you may think. I enjoy your writtings very
much! ("Kicking the s**t out of the English language ever since," was the
funnyist thing I've seen hit the LS.) Don't read any contempt or derision
here. I resorted to hyperboli for the purpose of showing how it comes
across when you start talking about giving up reason, giving up freedom
and worshiping society like it was God. (I know you hate Gates, and i'm
reasonably certain you don't kill Catholics or Prodestants.) What i'm
trying to get accross to you is this: You're writting CAN be very
effective, but you need to get it under some control or else everyone will
missunderstand and/or ignore. You've compared yourself to Joyce, but do
you know how much re-writing he did on his books!? Draft after draft
after draft. In truth, there are no good writers -- only good re-writers.
W/ Joyce, EVERYTHING was in control (and yet the amount of DQ there!!
The man was amazing!). I think if you learned more control and a bit more
disciplin you could easily become our best writer and even (God help us
all!) the LS's spokes-person. DQ does not mean pure unadulturated chaos
and randum spewing. Just some advice from one artist to another because I
care.
TTFN
Donny ("The Hostile") Palmgren
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