RE: MD Empiricism

From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Nov 21 2004 - 01:59:42 GMT

  • Next message: David Buchanan: "RE: MD Empiricism"

     

     
    Pirsig wrote:
    What is essential to understand at this point is that until now there was no
    such thing as mind and matter, subject and object, form and substance. Those
    divisions are just dialectical inventions that came later. The modern mind
    sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these dichotomies being inventions
    and says, "Well, the divisions were there for the Greeks to discover," and
    you have to say, "Where were they? Point to them!" And the modern mind gets
    a little confused and wonders what this is all about anyway, and still
    believes the divisions were there.
     
    But they weren't, as Phaedrus said. They are just ghosts, immortal gods of
    the modern mythos which appear to us to be real because we are in that
    mythos. But in reality they are just as much an artistic creation as the
    anthropomorphic Gods they replaced.
     
    dmb says:
    I don't know if you have anything specific in mind, Chin, but this struck me
    as a confirmation of what I was trying to say in the "empiricism" thread
    last weekend....

    The

    position that God is to be found within has always existed as an underground

    current in the West and the idea that man and nature are seperate from God

    has been the dominant view. The religions of the West are religions of

    exile, of trying to get back to the garden, of trying to earn a place in

    paradise through a proper relationship with God, usually mediated through a

    social institution and its functionaries.

    Now step back from these two appraoches for a moment and recall Pirsig's

    assertion that "all our intellectual descriptions are culturally derived",

    that the myths, rituals and cosmology stories of the social level come

    before any intellectual descriptions can be made. Now if we consider that

    the theological positon in traditional christianity has maintained the idea

    of a transcendent God in the sense that it is ontologically seperate and

    then compare that kind of duality to the kind of duality we get in SOM, I

    think we can see a continuity. We can see that mythological dualism led to

    intellectual dualism. And I think it is no accident that Pirsig is rejecting

    both SOM and theism in favor of philosophical mysticism, which does NOT

    posit a transcendent God. Instead, the MOQ is a form of philosophical

    mysticism, which says that "the reality of the world is intellectually

    unknowable". Its also no co-incidence that mysticism is rejected by BOTH

    traditional christianity AND scientific materialism. The MOQ is derived from

    different cultural elements, from the American Indians, from the East, and

    from the contrarians who inhabit that underground current in the West. The

    MOQ uses these elements to avoid dualism of either kind and instead asserts

    that reality is undivided and undefinable.

    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 21 2004 - 02:20:44 GMT