From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Nov 22 2004 - 01:16:11 GMT
Sam Norton asked:
What I'm trying to focus in on is how you understand the PP. Is it a social
level phenomenon (in which case, how do you reconcile describing it as 'like
a chemically purified abstraction'); or is it intellectual level (in which
case, how does it relate to the social level, eg language, ritual, etc); or
is it a culture all of its own, with its own unique shape?
dmb answered:
Philosophy is intellectual, wouldn't you agree? Philosophy is proabably the
most obvious and least controversial examples of intellectual quality,
right? So, yes, of course the perennial philosophy is intellectual. I really
don't understand why this should be a question. And when I say that it
preserves the wisdom of the social level, preserves the central message of
the world's great religions and myths, that it sees that is DQ portrayed in
these social level forms, I mean just that. Its a philosophy that EXTRACTS
wisdom from the social level. Its not that complicated, Sam. The new has
built upon the best of the old. I'm not saying the perennial philosophy is
JUST LIKE the social level, with its own myths, rituals, languages,
cultures, cops, armies, its own money, its own economy - or anything like
that. Where do you get this stuff?
Sam asked:
How do you know that "The distinction between myth and fact is a distinction
between social and intellectual"? Can you explain why you think this is
true?..
Two things: 1. we disagree on how to read Pirsig on this; 2. your quotes,
especially from Wilber,
are appealing to authorities which I do not necessarily recognise. Did you
not listen to MSH the
other day when he said that we need to be able to express the thoughts in
our own language and not
make external appeals? All I am asking is that you set out clearly in your
own words how you know
that "The distinction between myth and fact is a distinction between social
and intellectual". All
you have done so far is say 'Pirsig, Wilber and Campbell tell me that it is
so, and I believe them'.
Surely you can do better than that?
dmb says:
That's just bullshit. I have explained things in my own words virtually
every time I've posted - for years. The quotes only lend support and
clarity. Yes, the expertise of the scholars quoted does add some weight, but
these ideas certainly do NOT stand or fall upon anyone's authority. In fact,
the various voices I use are meant to show that its not about this guy or
that. Its about hearing good ideas expressed in various voices, including my
own.
But more to the point, I think its true because its an ecomonical
explanation, its logically consistent within the MOQ and with everything I
know about human history, about the evolution of human consciousness and
social development, it matches my own experience, it serves to explain the
world around me on a continuing basis. I feel the distinction within my own
mind. I don't know what else to tell you.
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 : Mon Nov 22 2004 - 04:05:33 GMT