Re: MD Systematic about the Sophists

From: Barritt (mbarritt@nc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Dec 23 2002 - 02:12:56 GMT

  • Next message: Barritt: "Re: MD Systematic about the Sophists"

    An excellent post.

    Barritt
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2002 4:27 PM
    Subject: RE: MD Systematic about the Sophists

    > Thanks to Barritt, Davor, Maggie, Matt, Sam and all readers:
    >
    > Matt said:
    > ...if logos is believed to be emergent from the mythos, then the change
    > between the levels is not discrete. ... A continuation, possibly in a
    > different direction, but still a continuation, not a sharp, discrete
    break.
    > This is why, by the end of ZMM, Pirsig favored the Sophists, not the
    > Socratics.
    >
    > Pirsig says in ZMM:
    > "The mythos-over-logos argument states that our rationality is shaped by
    > these legends [the mythos], that our knowledge today is in relation to
    > these legends as a tree is in relation to the little shrub it once was.
    > One can gain great insights into the complex overall structure of the tree
    > by studying the much simpler shape of the shrub. There's no difference in
    > kind or even difference in identity, only a difference in size." (Ch 28)
    >
    > DMB says:
    > This is a critical issue. As I said, putting our MOQ glasses on "only
    makes
    > ZAMM more clear and specific" and "resloves some ambiguities". The quote
    > above, for examaple, was written before the term "static levels" was
    > invented, which changes it dramatically and clears things up. "The
    > structuring of morality into evolutionary levels suddenly gives shape to
    all
    > kinds of blurred and confuesed moral ideas that are floating around in our
    > present cultural heritage." (163)The distinction between social and
    > intellectual static values removes the ambiguity so that the difference is
    > not analogous to a shrub and a tree, but to the sand and a tree. The
    > distinction is as sharp as between inorganic matter and living creatures.
    > BUT, and this is a really, really huge point, "This 'mythos over logos'
    > thesis agreed with the MOQ's assertion that intellectual static patterns
    are
    > built up out of social static patterns of quality". (378) This is what
    > Descartes failed to notice, what SOM fails to notice, what the Chairman
    > failed to notice and it is missing link that Pirsig uses to resolve so
    much.
    > There really is no problem with the logos being BOTH emergent from and
    > different than the mythos. In fact, the problem of SOM and so many
    > misunderstandings here stems precisely from not seeing this relationship
    > properly. Going back to the Sophists and Presocratic philosophers is aimed
    > at making that relationship easier to seems to be at the heart of Pirsig's
    > quest.
    >
    > Because DQ drives this evolutionary process, this relationship has to be
    > seen in the larger static/Dyanamic framework too. Which brings us to Sam's
    > comments.
    >
    > Sam said:
    > However, in this last post you are bringing in an 'outside' authority -
    > Campbell - which I think is a mistake at this point in our discussions.
    > (BTW, where does Pirsig refer to him?) I think that for the time being we
    > should just stick to what Pirsig says and not try and either support or
    > criticise it. In other words the objective is clarity (about Pirsig's
    > position) not truth (is what Pirsig says correct).
    >
    > DMB says:
    > I have to insist that Campbell be considered fair game in this discussion.
    > Pirsig mentions his MASKS OF GOD in the final pages of Lila (P401) as a
    way
    > to understand idols, ritual and the mythos. Campbell's relevence to the
    > issue can hardly be overestimated and only helps to explain things. I
    might
    > employ some outside voices, but its just to get at Pirsig's meaning.
    >
    > Sam said:
    > .............The question I would pose is this: why does there have to be
    an
    > 'essence' of mythology, and what is it in your manner of thinking that
    leads
    > to that necessity?
    >
    > DMB says:
    > Hmmm. I don't know if the "essence" of myth is what I'm trying to get at
    > here, exactly, but I think I know what you're asking. I'd say its not a
    > necessity, it is an observation. From the Guidebook, page 23...
    >
    > "In the spiritual traditions of both the East and the West - I am thinking
    > not about particular religions, but about the mystical element to be found
    > in them all - we find the claim that eventually one must let go of the
    > activities of thought and imagination in order to enter regions of
    > consciousness that such symbolic activity cannot reach. The journey then
    > becomes no longer a matter of metaphysical musing and horizontal ramblings
    > but a matter of vertical plunging (or rising) toward what T.S. Eliot
    > referred to as 'the still point of the turning world'. We might say the
    > journey becomes journeyless."
    >
    > Sure, there are plenty of differences between myths, religions and
    spiritual
    > traditions, but there is a central core that says one must take the
    plunge.
    > This is the hero's journey. The aim of the journey is a unitive
    experience,
    > a mystical experience. And if "DQ is identified with religious mysticism"
    > (Lila P377) and "Quality is the primordial source of all our
    understanding"
    > (Lila P378) and "Quality is the generator of everything we know" (ZM 354)
    > and rituals are "a static portrayal of DQ, a sign-post which allows
    > socially-dominated people to see DQ" (Lila chapter 30) then you can start
    to
    > see what I mean. We get the same idea in ZAMM, the Guidebook and Lila.
    From
    > volume three of THE MASKS OF GOD...
    >
    > "It is a law of our subject, proven time and time again, that where the
    > orthodoxies of the world go apart, the mystic way unites. The orthodoxies
    > are concerned primarily with the maintenance of a certain social order,
    whin
    > the pale of which the iddivdual is to function; in the interest of which a
    > certain 'wywtem of sentiments'
    >
    >
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 23 2002 - 02:16:55 GMT