From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Mon Dec 09 2002 - 19:18:13 GMT
Hi David, also Wim and anyone interested in ritual,
I think that you raise some good questions about my understanding of ritual,
and I shall, in due course, give an answer; and to Wim's specific questions
on this also. I remember that when Wim reminded me (about Pirsig's location
of the intellect's birth with ritual) I was surprised. I had forgotten that
aspect of chapter 30. So it would be good to thrash out some of the
elements.
However, what I would like to do first is suggest some ground rules. I'm
reluctant to have another conversation along the lines of the conservatism
and then the mysticism ones. In particular, in those I felt that there was
something that I wanted to articulate (or that I wanted to work out through
dialogue) and once I had said what I wanted to say, that was that (for me).
Here there isn't much extra that I want to say, although I'm very happy to
explore things further. In particular, it may well be that my understanding
of these things is stuck somewhere between level 3 and level 4. We shall
see.
What I would propose is the following: that we first have a few tries at
agreeing on what Pirsig is saying. It may well be the case that consensus is
impossible, and I have much sympathy with all those who say that it is
futile (and counter-productive) to try and treat Pirsig as writing a 'source
text' that we just have to analyse and decode. But it would be a good place
to start. If we can then either agree (or agree to disagree) about what
Pirsig has to say, it would ^then^ be good to go further and examine our own
perspectives, and how they agree with or differ from Pirsig's, at which
point I'll take you up on the question of rephrasing theology in MoQish and
other matters of ritual concern. I think Wim will be more interested in that
second stage.
At the end of ZMM Phaedrus describes how Socrates uses dialectic to throttle
quality and subordinate it to intellectual values. Sometimes I feel the very
same in discussion with you: that you are so concerned to establish the
primacy of intellectual values over the social level that you don't (in
practice) acknowledge any limits to the primacy of the intellectual. I
believe that if you did, you wouldn't be so 'cyberwarrior'-like in your mode
of arguing. You would acknowledge that it is possible to be wrong about
these things. So really I'm asking you to join in in a spirit of joint
exploration, not in a sense of "I'm right and you're wrong and it's really
important that I beat you around the head with my rectitude and rhetoric -
and don't take it personally coz I'm just telling it like I see it" and
other such warrior-like attitudes. To be frank, I am often persuaded that
you are wrong about an argument as a result of the way you say something,
not actually from what you are saying (although clearly I'm disagreeing with
much of that as well!). That is, I don't think it is possible to have an
accurate understanding of the value of the intellect without having a proper
humility about our own opinions and our own grasp of intellectual truth. Now
I'm as much stuck to my views as you are to yours - possibly more so, I'm
one of the most mulishly stubborn people I know - but I try (at least
rhetorically, <grin>) - to acknowledge that I might be wrong about these
things. Everything I have argued for on this forum could be wrong. (I don't
think that it is of course, and where I have 'moved', eg on my 'Four Theses'
post after 9/11, I've commented on it. The biggest change I've made is the
one I explored in the Sophocles thread, and as a consequence of that, I
don't agree with Pirsig about how to distinguish level 3 and level 4.)
But, be that as it may, it would probably best if you had a crack at
outlining what you think Pirsig thinks about ritual. (Obviously you've done
most of the work on that, I'm asking for you to set it out in a more formal
fashion). I will then come back at you on that, in terms of whether I think
you've articulated Pirsig's own position. I think it would be best for you
to start because you have more sympathy with Pirsig's overall position on
level 3 and level 4. What I have in mind is working up something together
that we can both sign up to as 'Pirsig's understanding of ritual', or at
least to append little footnotes to it acknowledging where we disagree.
What do you think? Would you be on for something systematic like this? I
just don't think I'm prepared to go into the volume of writing again that I
have expended over the last couple of months. That 'wave of crystallisation'
has run its course, and I don't see any value in continuing to spell out my
thinking at this point in time. I've said enough for people to know where
I'm coming from, and I don't have a lot to add. Perhaps I'm just tired....
Anyhow, I hope this approach is one you're interested in taking on.
Sam
The actual outlook is very dark, and any serious thought should start from
that fact. (George Orwell)
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 : Mon Dec 09 2002 - 21:05:31 GMT