From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 14 2004 - 19:26:16 GMT
Sam all MOQers:
How many Freudian psychoanalysts does it take to change a lightbulb?
It takes two. One to change the bulb while the other holds the penis. I
mean, um, ladder. The other one holds the ladder. Really, I meant ladder. I
don't know what I was, um, thinking of just then.
This is from the "terror & religion" thread, but changed the thread name to
better reflect the content.
Sam asked dmb:
Tell you what, as it seems to me that the perennial philosophy etc is
virtually solipsistic and akin to spiritual masturbation, why don't you
outline how it does support the social level? I don't think that it is
capable of supporting the social level, but I'm happy to concede that you
know more
about it than me. So how does it do so?
dmb reples:
Spiritual masturbation? What is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting
that I own an inflatable rubber love doll that resembles the Buddha, or
what? Why do you have to be like that, anyway? And you know perfectly well
that I'm not into fat guys. But seriously, I provided a heaping helping of
quotes that explain the perennial philosophy and point to some of the great
thinkers who subscribe to it and you ignore all that in favor of a vague,
and disgusting, insult? And, as Pirsig explains, if this message has
appeared in virtually every time and place on earth and some of the greatest
thinkers of all time have also found it to be true, then what possible
reason could you have for thinking it is in any way solipsistic? Its pretty
much the opposite of solipsim, its a source for universal agreement.
Somebody help me out. I need a reality check. Is it just me or is Sam being
rude and obtuse here?
In any case, to put it very simply, the perennial philosophy does not
SUPPORT the social level, it IS the social level, or rather the HEART and
SOUL of the social level. Its that part of the social level that refers to
the righteous order of the universe and the underlying ground of being. (Rht
and DQ) As Huxley explains, it is like a chemically purifiy extraction, it
is the common core message of all religions, of all myths. When we strip
away the superficial cultural peculiarities, an underlying structure and
meaning is revealed. Campbell's idea of "the hero with a thousands faces",
for example, shows how Orpheus, Buddha and the Christ are all the same guy
in different clothes, so to speak. They all took the same journey and serve
as a model for us to do the same. And the actual content of that core
message is pretty well depicted in Pirsig MOQ. It is a form of philosophical
mysticism and concieves static reality in terms of levels. As Wilber
explains, these are the two main elements that we find over and over. But
the quotes I dished up already said all that, and so I can't really imagine
what it is you don't understand. The perennial philosophy is not about
picking and choosing whatever doctrines and dogmas we might find useful, its
the wisdom we discover by looking at a wide range of pictures to determine
what is common to all of them. This is an intellectual construct in some
sense, but not particularly modern. The ancients had their library at
Alexandria and such and they also saw this.
Literalism just isn't possible within this view. By definition, it sees
right through the concrete expressions, which would make the various
religions seems entirely different rather than essentially the same, and
instead sees into the meaning behind those various expressions. The only way
to RECOGNIZE the commonalities is to read those various expressions as
metaphors instead of facts, to understand that they refer to spiritual
realities that can be experienced by all human beings regardless of culture
or religion, time and place. This is how the perennial philosophy becomes
that part of the social level that can survive the intellectual demands.
This is the part of the social level that IS NOT in conflict with the
intellectual level.
In anticipation of a reasonable objection, I have to add that there is also
the basic idea that one of the most central tasks of the social level is to
control the biological appetites and such. The perennial philosophy does not
deny or destroy this, as Pirsig's subscription tells us, but rather fits
into the righteous structure, into the idea of static reality as a series of
levels. The process of subjecting these kinds of social level morals is
necessarily more culture specific (Coming of Age in Samoa and all that.) but
is otherwise the same. We step back and, instead of rejecting or accepting
them blindly, we are advised to examine them to discover their original
point and purpose, to see what they're supposed to do, to see how well it
works and sort them out from there. Doesn't seem too tough. Thou shalt not
murder? You bet. Who doesn't buy that one? We certainly want to keep that
baby.But Thou shalt have no other God before me? It likely that there was a
point and purpose for that commandment somewhere in time, but its a lethal
idea in our own time.
I'm trying. I swear, I'm trying to make you understand.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 Nov 14 2004 - 21:58:29 GMT