John B, soul brothers and sisters:
Yes, using some discrimination is one of the keys to enjoyment here. I
read everything that's posted, but I can't help but take some more
seriously than others. I'm sure everyone does that to some extent, even
if its not quite conscious or deliberate. And like you, I have wanted to
respond to lots of posts that, unfortunately, slipped by because of time
constraints and such.
But that isn't going to happen this time. What follows is a direct
response to your Friday post, which I really enjoyed. I have some
disagreements, but its just a matter of splitting hairs. These are the
kinds of conversations that excite me.
I hope it fills you with gumption.
PROJECTION is like having one's head up one's ass. All you can see is
your own shit. (Sorry about the foul language. I just don't know of a
better way to say it.) And I think your guru was right to say that
"something above ninety percent of what goes on is projection". Our
views differ on this topic only with respect to Pirsig's take. Simply
put, I think he essentially agrees with you. In fact, I think he
addresses your concerns directly. Check it out... This is from page 334.
Following some excellent quotes on the nature of language and
perception, Pirsig writes...
"Insanity as an absence of common characteristics is also demonstrated
by the Rorschach ink-blot test for schizophrenia. (I assume here that
the ink-blot is used to facilitate projection. Its meaningless, yet
suggestive.) In this test, randomly formed ink splotches are shown to
the patient and he is asked what he sees. If he says, "I see a pretty
lady with a flowering hat," that is not a sign of schizophrenia. But if
he says, "All I see is an ink-blot," he is showing signs of
schizophrenia. The person who responds with the most elaborate lie gets
the highest score for sanity. The person who tells the absolute truth
does not. Sanity is not truth. Sanity is conformity to what is socially
expected."
Its pretty obvious that Pirsig is saying that those who fail to
"project" a socially sanctioned vision onto reality are deemed insane,
while those who conform to the standard script are given a clean bill of
health. As Pirsig says, "Sane people don't realize what a bunch of
role-players they are, but the insane see this and resent it."
He actually uses the image of film projection as an analogy, and says
that sanity is nothing more than watching the approved movie. He refers
to that kind of reality as "24 shadows per second", clearly a reference
to Plato's analogy of the cave. Both Pirsig and Plato say its a reality
that needs to be transcended. In the MOQ, which Pirsig says could be
just as accurately called a metaphysics of sanity, these modern,
scientific shadows on the cave wall are extremely convincing. So,
"something above ninety percent of what goes on is projection".
On the bright side, if this is re-imagined as a natural part of "static
latching" and the "cultural immune system", it doesn't seem quite so
horrible. All that projection isn't sick or hallucinatory, although
there's plenty of that too, its just static, square and unenlightened.
You know what I mean?
I should say that this compliments the idea of the "contrarians" as the
dynamic force in human evolution. There has always been a connection
between genius and madness. The MOQ explains this so well, it could be
called the MOSanity.
You put it beautifully when you said that soul-less is "arid,
mechanical, driven, cold, clinical". The thing is, what you describe is
the aesthetic FEEL of what Pirsig complains about most, the amoral
scientific objectivity of SOM. Again, I think you and he essentailly
agree. Both of you don't like the same thing. Unlike Bodvar, I don't
believe this is a inherent feature of the intellect, its just a
particular world view that dominates our culture. The MOQ is offered as
an alternative for the intellect. He gives this to us in the form of a
novel as if to demonstrate a soulful way to philosophize, as if to show
us how to think with the heart as well as the intellect. He breaths
life into it with all kinds of people, living and dead, fictional and
historical, and there's even a ghost or two. Talk about soul! He rides,
he sails, he trips and fails. He's got soul. Lila refers to the cosmic
dance and even us former Baptists know you gotta have soul to dance.
Question. Is this use of the word "soul" just an Americanism? Does the
idea that it takes soul to dance and sing translate in Europe or down
under? I'm thinking it may be an AfricanAmerican thing. You know, like
the early Beatles or Van Morrison. ; )
As to the issue of "voice" and reading between the lines, etc., I'd like
to cut people some slack here. Writing with a voice that is clear and
intentional is a pretty hard thing to do. The issues we discuss here
only make such an achievement all the more difficult. I'd even go so far
as to say some of the writers here have real talent. And the folks who
only speak English as a second language are most amazing.
Talk to me!
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