From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 16:43:30 GMT
Dear David B.,
You disagreed 23 Feb 2003 15:58:51 -0700 with 'religious rituals are the
first intellectual patterns of value' as a 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.'
You are right 8 Mar 2003 19:25:45 -0700 that
'Ritual always comes first and intellectual principles always come later'
and 'the first intellectual truths could have been derived from ritual' can
be interpreted as being entirely consistent. There is no mending needed
there.
As I said 4 Mar 2003 09:18:11 +0100:
'I agree that 'Only intellectual truths belong to the intellectual level' is
... a possible interpretation of what Pirsig wrote'.
It is an interpretation that doesn't need more mending than the
interpretation I favor (but not less either, because you delete the second
part of the Pirsig quote).
The point of discussion is, whether 'religious rituals are the first
intellectual patterns of value' is ALSO a possible interpretation of the
WHOLE Pirsig quote.
As I said 4 March that interpretation is based also on the second part of
Pirsig's statement (which you deleted when pleading entire consistency):
'ritual cannot always be a decadent corruption of intellect'.
This statement says explicitly that ritual is (not always but at least)
sometimes a decadent corruption of intellect, i.e. that intellect comes
first and ritual comes later, and implicitly that ritual can also sometimes
be seen as a Dynamic (not decadent/degenerate) product of intellect.
What about seeing it this way:
Intellect comes first.
It first produces the kind of rituals that were the (possible) connecting
link between social and intellectual level, e.g. hunting rituals that
symbolized a successful hunt, (connecting the social and intellectual level,
because being rituals they are also part of the social level).
Then the first intellectual truths/principles are derived from these
rituals, e.g. that humoring the spirits of the hunted animals is necessary
for successfully hunting them.
Could this not be a possible interpretation too?
And again:
Why do you think I make too much of Pirsig's definition of intellectual
patterns of value (= mind = consciousness = symbols created in the brain
that stand for experience) from 'Lila's Child' if he obviously meant that
definition to clear up different possible interpretations of 'Lila'?
It is that definition that makes me think that seeing some rituals as
elements of the first intellectual patterns of value (symbols that stand for
a successful hunt for instance) would be preferred by Pirsig.
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 : Sun Mar 09 2003 - 16:42:21 GMT