From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 19:01:47 GMT
Wim, Sam and all:
Wim said:
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.
DMB says:
It seems you're all tangled up by things that are perfectly clear and I'm
running out of ways to explain it. At the risk of insulting your
intelligence, let me try to untie the knots step by step. Rituals are not
intellectual. They are never, in any case whatsoever, to be found at the
intellectual level. They are social level things and existed for thousands
of years before there was ever such a thing as intellect. So, to say that
"religious rituals are the first intellectual patterns of value" violates
the MOQ's discrete levels, as well as common sense. To say that intellect
comes first, before ritual, is like saying that you were born before your
parents, which is logically impossible. Don't you see that?
As Pirsig says:
"If ritual ALWAYS comes FIRST, and intellectual principles ALWAYS COME
LATER, then ritual connot ALWAYS be a decadent corruption of intellect.
Their sequence in history suggests that PRINCIPLES EMERGE FROM RITUAL, not
the other way around. That is, we don't preform religious rituals because we
believe in God. We believe in God because we perform religious ritual."
DMB continues:
Pirsig's concern with "decadent corruption of intellect" is related to two
unsaid things, which is why I breezed over it last time. The first one is
all about the moral codes. But as a brief reminder, the codes describe a
moral system based on the way each of the levels relate to each other. Its
right and proper for social values to control biology. Marriage, for
example, is a ritual designed to control sexuality and reproduction.
Likewise, it is right and proper for intellectual values to control the
social level. Rights, for example, put limits on social authority. The
second unspoken issue is the specific ritual Pirsig is thinking of
performing for Lila's sake. I'm sure you recall the doll and Pirsig's ritual
disposal of it. According to the moral codes, it is a "decadent corruption"
when the lower level attempts to control a higher level. And he is saying
that his performance of a funeral ritual for Lila's doll can't be decadent
or corrupt because it is NOT a case of ritual trying to control intellect,
but of intellect trying to control ritual, which is no problem morally
speaking. (Its worth pointing out that a few sentences later he says, "He
had a feeling that real ritual had to grow out of your own nature. It isn't
something that can be intellectualized and patched on. The funeral would be
a pretense".)
And there one more thing about what you said, which is "that ritual can also
sometimes be seen as Dynamic (not decadent/degenerate) product of
intellect." Besides the problem of saying ritual is a product of intellect,
of saying the parent is the product of the child, which i already explained,
there is the problem of saying ritual can be Dynamic. This violates the
distinction between static and Dynamic. Ritual is static. It is created
Dynamically, is left in the wake of Dynamic Quality, and can allow people to
see DQ, but the ritual itself is static, by definition. Your personal
religous views might lead you to disagree, but these are Pirsig's
definitions and if we can't agree to accept these, at least for the sake of
argument, then we are quite simply talking about different things. If you
insist on your own religious ideas about this stuff, I'd beg you to use
alternative terms in order to avoid confusion.
Wim said:
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?
DMB says:
If the first intellectual principles ARE DERIVED FROM THESE RITUALS, how can
intellect come first? You'd have an easier time convincing me that you are
your own grandfather. Its logically impossible. "de rive: verb. 1.)To
receive or obtain from a source or origin. 2.) To trace from a source or
origin.
Wim asked:
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'?
DMB says:
I already answered this once by saying that this is only one of many
comments Pirsig makes about intellect. It has to be seen in the total
context of the MOQ. All by itself, apparently, you're using it to come to
conclusions that are illogical in the exteme. For example....
Wim said:
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.
DMB says:
Huh? Symbols that stand for a successful hunt are intellectual? I think that
idea is very bizzare and has nothing to do with Pirsig's definition of
intellect. Hunting rituals are very far from intellectual. They are archaic
and magical. You know those very ancient cave paintings in France? They give
us a pretty good idea what hunting rituals were like. Its even easier to see
what they are if we look at American Indian religions. In either case, even
the most breif examination will reveal how steeped in magic they were. They
had a spiritual relationship with the animals they hunted. They preyed upon
them and prayed to them. To those who conducted such rituals, there was
nothing symbolic about it. It was real and actual and literal.
I hope that helps loosen the grip of whatever it is that has you so
confused.
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 - 19:02:52 GMT