From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Tue Mar 04 2003 - 07:37:57 GMT
Dear Sam,
I'm not sure if I agree with your (23 Feb 2003 12:03:24 -0000) giving up on
ritual, yet. Broadening out the thread entails too much risk, I'm afraid, to
get stranded in the disagreement between David B. and me about how to
distinguish the levels.
I guess one can broaden the meaning of 'ritual' (without making it
unrecognizable) to make it THE static latch of the social level (as you
insisted 16 Feb 2003 18:19:35 -0000). It's just that I thought that I had
found a better way of describing the static latch of the social level in
general: unthinking behavior copied between generations in processes
focussed on seeking 'status/celebrity'.
I'm not sure if it is very useful to describe the 'pattern that holds
together a nation' ('Lila' chapter 12) for instance as only a 'ritual', even
though rituals can be part of it. 'Symbols created in the brain that stand
for experience' (from Pirsig's definition of the intellectual level in
'Lila's Child') seems broader than 'ritual'. It doesn't really describe the
way the level is latched however, but rather what is built on those latches.
You ask 16 Feb whether it is this Pirsig's explicit view that putting social
patterns of values to sleep is A way of attaining freedom from them
(presumably an Eastern way), not THE way of doing so.
Well, he also describes the Western way: 'In the West progress seems to
proceed by a series of spasms of alternating freedom and ritual.' Implicitly
he seems to favor the Eastern way, but he makes explicit that it is not the
only way. One could disagree with his preference for the Eastern way by
stating that in the West people are generally more free from social patterns
of values than in the East (I don't know if I agree) and concluding that the
Eastern may apparently more easily get stuck along the way of attaining
freedom than the Western way.
I think that ritual being (also) a static latch of the intellectual level is
a debatable but possible interpretation of Pirsig's statement:
'If ritual always comes first and intellectual principles always come later,
then ritual cannot always be a decadent corruption of intellect.'
The implicit conclusion of this statement can be read as: 'then ritual can
also sometimes be seen as a first product of intellect'.
Pirsig indeed wrote that 'ritual might be THE connecting link' between
social and intellectual patterns of value. So that is a disagreement between
him and me: I think symbolic language is another possible link.
You wrote 23 Feb under quotes from David B. and me:
'I would quibble with this, but in a context of broad agreement.'
Did you mean that broadly you agreed with BOTH David's take on
distinguishing the 3rd and 4rd level AND with mine??? They are very
different. I do see value in David's distinction, but only as a subdivision
of the 4rd level.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Tue Mar 04 2003 - 08:17:25 GMT