From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 08 2002 - 20:37:57 GMT
Sam, Wim and every one:
Sam said:
I re-read Chapter 30, which was stimulating and enjoyable. I agree with
Patrick that it is refreshing to return to what Pirsig himself says:
sometimes we get distracted by our own preconceptions.
DMB says:
Yea. Chapter 30 is my favorite these days. About these distracting
preconceptions... I'd ask you and all readers to look closely at this
conversation. These issues seem close to the heart of things. I mean, we're
getting at the differences between the social and intellectual level as they
relate to Dynamic Quality. We're getting at how these major elements of the
MOQ all work together. I'd even go so far as to say anyone who gets it, gets
the MOQ.... Nobody is immune to the distortions that preconceptions can
cause, but I have to say that what you've seen in my posts is my best effort
to describe an accurate picture of mysticism and religion as it is in the
MOQ. The material that I bring to the discussion is only intended to
suppliment, explain or support Pirsig's view on this. Not that the author is
beyond criticism, but because full comprehension must preceed any valid
criticism.
From chapter 30:
"Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as the
rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality, a
sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see Dynamic
Quality. The danger has always been that the rituals, the static patterns,
are mistaken for what they merely represent and are allowed to destroy the
Dynamic Quality they were originally intended to preserve."
DMB says:
This quote is worth pondering for several reasons, but notice the main
point. Rituals are static portrayals of Dynamic Quality. They're social
level static patterns, but they refer to and describe DQ. I think we all
agree that a mystical experience is the abandonment of all static patterns
in favor of DQ. And I think we all share the notion that DQ is the ultimate
mystery, the ground of all being, the creative force that underlies and
supports all of creation, and that creation itself is a manifestation of
that same ground of being. DQ is God. Rituals portray God. They are
enactments of myths about God and union with God. We might even say that the
measure of a myth or a ritual is in its ability to portray DQ, its
transparency to transcendence. If the ritual refers to itself or to some
other static doctrine, its not doing a good job pointing to DQ. If it
doesn't speak to the mystery, the mystical vision, it is a poor servant.
Isn't that what Pirsig is saying? I think so. It also raises a question. If
rituals and ritualistic religion is helpful to "socially pattern-dominated
people", what helps intellectually inclined people? What helps the mystic? I
think the right answers to these questions would be like keys that unlock
the whole MOQ.
SAM said:
It's something of an axiom in 'my' tradition of Christianity that the
Eucharist is bigger than we can understand, that it cannot ever be
'captured' by static intellectual patterns. That I think is one of the
necessary things for a correct understanding or approach to the Eucharist -
it is, in fact, the only thing that will enable you to meet God in the
process. Going from Pirsig's comments above, I think he would agree.
DMB says:
Excuse me for interupting, but I feel compelled to disagree. I think he
would not agree. It seems you're saying that the Eucharist is beyond
intellectual patterns, but rituals are part of the mythos, ritualistic
religions serve socally dominated people. The Eucharist is a mythic symbol
that is load with tons of static patterns. It is deep and mysterious, as are
all myths and archetypes. They are as elusive as dreams and potent as a
lightening bolt, but they are not DQ itself. They are not intellectual
either, but they're not to be under-estimated. They are powerful
representations of DQ. The mythos is full of these things. I disagree
because the Eucharist, insofar as it is a static portrayal, can be
understood by the intellect, at least to a certain extent. What's beyond
intellect is the mystery to which it refers. And if I understand the quote
accurately, the question is whether or not the Eucharist functions well as a
static portrayal of DQ. Does it become transparent instrument and reveal the
mystery? I suppose it does, at least on occasion. But I suspect too many
worship the church and its symbols rather than the real thing. I suspect
most practicioners are eating the menu.
Sam continued: .....................................................As the
Eucharist cannot be captured, it is something which enables the 'embrace' of
DQ; put differently, the meaning of the Eucharist is inexhaustible, you can
always go deeper into it. This 'going deeper' is not necessarily a deeper
'capture' of the ritual, although it can be, for another axiom of my
tradition is that you are shaped by the Eucharist ("The Eucharist makes the
Church"). That is, as you journey deeper into God, so you become more alike
to God. So the ritual does its job of shaping the patterns which you are
made of in a more dynamic direction
DMB says:
The Eucharist seems inexhaustible and deep because it is heavily invested
with meaning. Vast complexes of myth and doctrine are loaded onto that
little thing. And all this talk about capturing and shaping of static
patterns... No, this is not about the mystery. Its too self-referencial, too
tied in with conformity to tradition, too static. I certainly detect a
reference to DQ buried under all the clap trap. Perhaps you'd like to
explain how the Eucharist portrays DQ? Maybe it would freshen things if you
described it without theological terms. Maybe even Pirsiginan terms?
"If you ask a Catholic priest if the wafer he holds at mass is really the
flesh of Jesus Christ, he will say yes. If you ask, 'Do you mean
SYMBOLICALLY?' he will answer, 'No, I mean actually.' Similarly if you ask
Lila whether the doll she holds is a dead baby she will say yes. If you ask,
Do you mean SYMBOLICALLY?' she would also answer, 'No, I mean actually.' It
is considered correct to say that until you understand that the wafer is
really the body of Christ you will not understand the Mass. ... The main
difference is that the Christian, since the time of Constantine, has been
supported by huge social patterns of authority. ... That isn't a fair
comparison, though. If the major religions of the world consisted of nothing
but statues and wafers and other such paraphenalia they would have
disappeared long ago in the face of scientific knowledge and cultural
change, Phadedrus thought. What keeps them going is something else."
(Pirsig, chapter 30)
DMB says:
Fascinating, eh? He paints ritualistic Christianity as a collective
delusion, but also says that there's something else that keeps them going.
Surely he means the DQ that all the symbols are meant to point at. I think
that the mystical vision is what precipitated these symbols in the first
place and constantly re-emerges to freshen them. As Campbell would put it,
the hero is engaged in a "constant shattering of the crystalizations of the
moment", he is the dynamic force that constantly refreshes the static
patterns.
Sam said:
What I suspect happened with Aquinas was that, after decades of deliberation
and exposition on the nature of the Eucharist (and indeed his involvement
with the development of the feast of Corpus Christi) he had 'lapsed' -
possibly unconsciously - into thinking that he had 'captured' the meaning of
the Eucharist in his static intellectual patterns, ie his writing and his
liturgical endeavours. At that moment when he was celebrating, I think he
realised his mistake, he gained some insight into the unfathomable depths,
and realised just how great the distinction was between his static patterns
and the nature of the process he was engaged in. Hence: "I cannot do any
more. Everything I have written seems to me as straw in comparison with what
I have seen."
DMB says:
Realized a mistake? Gained an insight? I think its pretty obvious that he
had a mystical experience and it was thereby revealed to him how hollow and
empty his static patterns were. I'd even speculate that he saw how
inadequate they were at portraying what he'd seen directly. It says volumes
about the distance between the mystical vision and its portrayal in the
Church, no? Its not a stellar endorsement, is it? I mean, if the rituals and
doctrines seem like straw to one whose just had a mystical experience, it is
hard to imagine how we can say they reflect those experience well.
Sam said:
BTW it is interesting that Pirsig is presenting rituals as for 'socially
pattern-dominated people'. That suggests two things - that (for Pirsig) the
rituals are what enables a transition from level 3 to level 4, and also that
it is possible to describe people as dominated by one level or another.
DMB says:
Right. Thanks for seeing that. I've done my honest best to render an
accurate description of the MOQ and these two ideas are key...
"These rituals may be the connecting link between the social and
intellectual levels of evolution. One can imagine primitive song rituals and
dance rituals associated with certain cosmology stories and myths, which
generated the first primitive religions. From these the first intellectual
truths could have been derived." (chapter 30)
Notice how the rituals are "associated" with myths and cosmologies? I think
they are more intimately intertwined than the word suggests. Rituals enact
the myth. It has a way of speaking to the body, the organismism itself, to
the aspect of our selves that is preverbal. Further, the stories and
cosmologies that we find in the mythos have a way of putting us all in a
cosmic context. We see a corrupted form of this cosmic vision in the
grandiose and historically-bound apocalyptic theologies of the
fundamentalists.
Sam said:
Perhaps the comment about Lila being 'intellectually nowhere' might best be
put as "Lila was a person on whom intellectual patterns gained little
purchase, and for whom biological patterns were dominant."
DMB says:
That's okay. The main idea here is that we can make distinctions. Its not
good enough to simply say Lila has quality. That's where we were left at the
end of ZAMM, just the vague idea. In the second book he makes these
distinctions so we can say she has biological quality, there is something
Dynamic going on with her. We can make distinctions about cultures and
nations, people and events, we can use the MOQ as an explanatory tool and as
a moral compass. If we can't make the calls about which kind of values are
where, then the MOQ is useless.
I can't take it any more. I have to confess. This whole effort to portray
Lila as a dumb-dumb is just an elaborate rationalization. We used to be a
thing, her an I. She broke my heart. I seek revenge for her mocking of my
manhood. Just kidding. I've not yet dated a fictional character, but I hope
it would be someone more like wonder woman than Lila.
Thanks for your time
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 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 08 2002 - 20:38:39 GMT