Platt and all MOQ philosophers:
Thanks for the Polling results. The fact that "people feel (a) loss of
morality" can hardly to denied. Not only is this issue directly related
to our debate on the reason for reason, it goes to the heart of Pirsig's
work. Platt, you've started down a path that I hope the rest of us
follow. Perhaps we ought to start a fresh thread and call it something
like "morality and the intellect" or "social level values in the 21st
century" or something like that.
I'd like to suggest that two things are clear from the poll's results.
Most folks believe that morality is being destroyed, and they believe
that science and technology has created alot of wealth and improved the
quality of our lives.
(I was also impressed by the number of people who consider the extension
civil rights as a good thing. The David Dukes of the world are far too
popular for my tastes and I dread the idea of bigots like him in public
life.)
But sticking to the main topic, I should point out that, according to
Pirsig, it is the amoral scientific objectivity that is responsable for
our prosperity AND the decline in morals. Its a love/hate thing we've
got going on with the scientific world view. It seems to me that the
lack of morals and the explosion of technology are two sides of the same
coin. I think its safe to assume that very few of the people questioned
for the poll are historians or metaphysicians and they don't see the
connnection.
I am reminded of several ideas in Lila. Pirsig says that there was a
"terrible loneliness" that crept into the culture after WW 1, in the
1920's. He provides a great image for us, painting the quest for
material wealth as a dog race. He says that the "mechanical rabbit" is
blindly chased and sought after, but when and if it is ever actually
caught there is inevitably disappointing, cold and has mechanical
flavor. Clearly both ideas refer to the amorality inherent in the
current scientific, materialistic world view. We are rich, but that
wealth has a cost. Our technological world comes with soul-murdering
consequences.
People are happy about the money and the modern conveniences, but they
don't like the social consequences of the world view that made it all
possible.
We're talking about the main issue in our own time, the main issue in
the 20th century and the main reason for Pirsig's work. He has
identified the problem and gives us a solution. His MOQ repairs the
flaw in the intellect by putting moral and values back at the center of
things. This answer saves human reason fromits own amorality and
re-claims morality from the "Rigels, the Victorians, fundamentalists,
right-wingers and other ignorant, uneducated people"
The religious right in the U.S. has identified this lack of morality as
the result of "secular humanism". Its safe to say that this label is
essentially what Pirsig is talking about when he refers to "amoral
scientific objectivity". I think Pirsig provides a real solution in
demanding that the intellectual values be adequately mediated through
social level values. But the religious right offers a solution that is
far worse than the problem. They would throw the baby out with the bath
water, so to speak. They would have us all return to bible-based
Rockwell fantasy that never existed in the first place. According to the
MOQ, I think this kind of answer only represents a regression backwards
and is anti-evolutionary.
But... they have very nearly identified the same problem Pirsig
addresses, they just have different names for it, imagine different
causes for it and clearly have worked out entirely different solution
for it. Even I, perhaps the most left-leaning guy amongst us, can see
that they are partially correct.
On the other hand, I hardly think too much humanism is the problem. In
fact, I think that when Pirsig talks about social level mediation of the
sciences he is talking about making the intellect more human, that is to
say more infused with the morality of our humanity. This, by no means,
implies that Pirsig wishes to replace the intellect with old-fashioned
moral codes or superstitions. He only wants the intellect to be
adequately informed by its parent, which is the social level, which is
presently ignored by science. Social level values are much deeper and
wiser than the bible-thumpers could ever imagine.
The mistaken SOM view was created by the deliberate ignorance of social
level values during the scientific revolution. They had sought to
isolate their inquiries into nature from prejudice, superstition and
faith. They were rightly seeking raw facts a data, but it resulted in
the amoral objectivity of our present materialistic technological
culture. Pirsig paints this mistake as a historical problem that goes
back much further than the European enlightenment. I'm sure that you're
well aware of the references to Sanskrit and ancient Greek ideas. I've
found another example of a historical crossroad where we may have taken
a similar wrong turn. Or maybe its more like one of many points of
departure from the correct path. We've been heading toward this huge
mistake for a couple thousand years.
This is from "MYSTICISM: ITS HISTORY AND CHALLENGE" by Bruno Borchert
and begins on page152.
"At the beginning of the second century, Alexandria was a melting pot
into which everything had been thrown - old Egyptian religions, the
deliberatelu invented Serapis mystery cult, new Greek and ancient
Persian religions, Judiaism, Christianity and Gnosticism. In addition to
religion ther was philosophy, science and sport. The unification then
attempted is known as 'syncretism'. The different religions did not
oppose one anotherbut tried to grow nearer to one another. In ancient
Egypt the rationale behind this syncretism was a deep-rooted political
determination to unify the country."
"In Alexandria a mystical attitude gave added impetus to the political
motive for syncretism. The mystics said that, as the One (DQ) is
unknowable, all images of God are mere hints at his nature, although
they may serve to suppliment one another. One of the questions arising
out of the mystical experience is: how solid is sensory reality? When a
reality has been experienced that is "more real" than everyday reality,
there is a tendency to interpet the spiritual reality as the source of
the material world. Material reality becomes, as it were, transparent,
an image of the spiritual, and capable of being changed by the spirit.
Unity has to be reached "in the spirit". All forms are then relative.
Mysticism is prone to take on board a great deal - even things that are
apparently antithetic."
"At Alexandria this mystical attitude was perceptible in everything.
Philo stated that mystical experience gave a deeper insight into reality
than that given by knowledge. Alexandria was a noted center for the
exact sciences, but mystical "insight" was regarded more highly there.
However it was not seen as being in conflict with knowledge. This was
the prevailing attitude in relgious matters too.The concrete forms of
religion were compared, and interpeted in terms of the mystical insight
and it was declared that a choice had to be made between building up a
church by the spirit and building it up by ritual, a settled
organization, and hard doctrine."
"Alexander and Rome were antipodes. Both were crucibles of change, but
in Rome a genius for organization and in Alexandria a mystical genius
was at work. This is something of an exaggeration, because the battle
lines were not quite so clear, and it was a long time before the two
came into open conflict and Rome won."
It seems to me that the battle between Alexandria and Rome was not a
choice between science and religion and it was not a choice between
social or intellecual values, it was a choice about how dynamic or
static our science and religion would be. When Rome won, dynamism lost.
Their "genius for organization" defeated Alexandria's "genius for the
mystical". Rome's victory eventually lead to Aristotelian Christiandom
and then the scientific revolution that later replaced it. The mystical
hasn't yet recovered from the defeat.
I think Pirsig's fifth moral code and his overall emphasis on DQ is
exactly aimed at saving mysticism from the highly latched,
over-organized, static world view that we've all inherited. Perhaps if
Alexandria had won back in the first century we would be living in a
completey different world and there would be no need for the MOQ.
David B.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST