From: ian glendinning (psybertron@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Oct 20 2005 - 21:02:05 BST
Hey, no problem Arlo ...
I know you used the phrase "psychedelic revelations" - but you did notmake the assertion Platt did on your behalf.
I was spelling it for Platt's benefit, not yours.I know, you know etc ... ;-)
I agree with the thrust of your thread about fixing the cultural defect, etc ...Ian
On 10/20/05, Arlo J. Bensinger < > wrote:> With regards to the "psychedelic revelations" of Pirsig (sorry, Ian, I did state> this, although I'm not lumping Pirsig in with Leary), I copied the link to the> well-explained post by Ant outlining exactly that the MOQ originated in the> peyote experience of Pirsig.>> http://www2.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/16742.html>> By the way, sorry again Ian for miscrediting the timeline.>> [Anyways, Platt responded]> I suggest you read that over and then tell me where you find the words> Dynamic Quality and static quality, the division which is the basis for> the MOQ. You won't find it there, but you will in the following passage at> the end of Pirsig's long story about the Zuni brujo:>> [snipped quote where Platt cites that Pirsig thought about the MOQ]>> [Arlo]> Oh yes, I am certain he did. But the originating momenet, the "germ kernal"> moment, if you will, that the underlying thesis was revealed, was in the peyote> ritual. No ritual, likely no MOQ.>> Y
ou can tell me all you want about the rational, back-end work that Pirsig did,> and I'd agree, but it still doesn't change that it's very, very clear that this> peyote experience precipitated the foundational aspects to Pirsig's entire> thesis. This one psychedelic experience deveiled reality and opened Pirsig's> mind to what would later be formulated as the MOQ.>> I suggest you, Platt, read that whole thing again. But, just in case you missed> it, here is a section from Ant's post.>> "...it looked as though the whole book would center around this long night's> meeting of the Native American Church. THE CEREMONY WOULD BE A KIND OF SPINE TO> HOLD IT ALL TOGETHER. FROM IT HE WOULD BRANCH OUT AND SHOW IN TANGENT AFTER> TANGENT THE ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX REALITIES AND TRANSCENDENTAL QUESTIONS THAT> FIRST EMERGED IN HIS MIND THERE…>> Phædrus couldn't have gone that distance without the peyote. He would have> just sat there "observing" all this "objectively" like a well-trained> anthropology student. But the p!
eyote pr
evented that. He didn't observe, he> participated, exactly as Dusenberry had intended he should do…">> Couldn't have gone that distance without the peyote. That's it right there,> amigo. Psyedelic revelation. Certainly one that post-session was given a lot of> rational work, but the origin, the source, the Quality moment... well, Pirsig> makes that clear.>>> And on to the other day's business...>> [Platt previously]> Most people haven't read Lila. Most people don't question the source of> their moral standards. Doesn't mean they are stupid.>> [Arlo previously]> Do most people question the source of their beliefs? (Which is pretty much> the same question) When I've suggested "no", you've criticized me for> calling everyone "stupid".>> [Platt]> As I recall, the context was that your implied that compared to liberals,> conservatives were stupid because they weren't critical thinkers. But, I> could be wrong..>> [Arlo]> You are, and you know it. What I said, if I have to repeat it again, was that> evidence of a l
ack of critical discerning I gleen from (1) the absolute> duplication of a party's platform, on every issue, on every stance, (2) an> unwillingness to critically examine the actions of individuals in said party, a> blind allegience that they can do no wrong, and (3) a polar reaction to an> action depending not on the action but on the party it originates from. And> part of all this, which I could add as (4) a villification of oppositional> thought as not only useless, but harmful or threatening.>> Combine ALL of these, and yes, I'd say that this person, regardless of their> party affiliation, shows a lack of critical thinking, and instead evidences> that their decision making faculties have been turned over to the party.>> But, again, do you think most people question the source of their beliefs?> You've already said you feel most people don't question th source of their> morals, and that such non-questioning doesn't imply stupidity. How comes when I> say it, you always reply with the whole "stupid pe!
ons" rhe
torical tactic?>> Getting back to the whole premise, Pirsig realized there was a defect in the> culture that prevented real appreciation or attunement to Quality. His solution> was to expand (or enrich) the dialogue by giving people a means by which they> could better live. ZMM was founded on the idea that 100 years of SOMist> thinking lead to "junk" in the production and consumption of things because no> one had any way to talk about Quality. I agree with that. And I see no evidence> that now suddenly, despite the MOQ not being universally accepted, people> suddenly have the means they lacked 50 years ago. If they do, where'd they get> it? Or did they have it all along and Pirsig was wrong to think as he did?>> Arlo>>> 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 - >> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:> http
://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html>>
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 -
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 : Thu Oct 20 2005 - 22:44:38 BST