From: Elizaphanian (elizaphanian@tiscali.co.uk)
Date: Tue Mar 11 2003 - 19:29:12 GMT
Hello David, Matt, Wim, anyone interested in this old thread,
I've now read the Kingsley book, "Ancient Philosophy, Mystery, and Magic".
It's excellent, just as good as DMB said it was (and many thanks to him for
bringing it to my attention). However, I have one or two qualms about how
DMB has used it, and I'd like to focus in on a key issue. But first, a
return to some things that Matt and DMB disagreed about.
From a post 22 December last:
> Matt said:
> "The MoQ can say that logos is emergent from the mythos. That's not
> controversial. That was the typical interpretation offered by the Greeks
> all the way to the present until people started offering the
> mythos-over-logos argument in contrast to the usual interpretation. The
> interpretation that the MoQ offers is essentially logos-over-mythos. The
> Intellect level is morally superior to the Social level. The
> mythos-over-logos interpretation says that neither is morally superior
over
> the other."
>
> DMB says:
> I didn't realize that you were reversing the order of mythos and logos.
> "People starting offering the mythos over logos"? Who ever said that? In
any
> case, I think Pirsig is quite clear and simple on this.
>
> Matt said:
> So, once again, I agree with you that there is no problem with saying that
> the Intellect is emergent out of the Social. No problem, you're analogy
is
> great. However, the problem is that that's not all the mythos-over-logos
> argument says. It also says that they are continuous, not discrete. The
> logos-over-mythos argument that the MoQ uses says there is a discrete
break
> and uses the mother/baby analogy. The mythos-over-logos argument says
> there isn't a discrete break and uses the shrub/tree analogy. As far as I
> can see, the two aren't compatible and you really haven't given me any
> reason to think otherwise.
>
> DMB says:
> The MOQ sharpens the distinction. In ZAMM they are continuous, but in Lila
> they are made discreet. The distinction is drawn between levels of static
> quality. This is merely a modification, a rethinking of the difference.
This
> is why we get two different analogies, one that depicts the intellect as a
> larger and more mature version of the mythos, and the later, sharper
> depiction as parent and child. They still have an evolutionary
relationship,
> but in the latter intellect is a whole new creature. Again, we are trying
to
> explore the relationship between the mythos and logos by way of the
Sophists
> and such. Compatable? They are not supposed to be compatible. The MOQ's
> static levels override the tree/shrub analogy - big time.
So, as I read it, DMB believes that the MoQ as presented in Lila (as opposed
to the presentation in ZMM) rejects the tree/shrub analogy for the
relationship between mythos and logos. I think he's right in so far as he
interprets Lila and ZMM; with Matt (I believe), I think the division is in
fact untenable.
Kingsley has a 'recurring theme' in his book (his words), and I would like
to quote a representative extract (p 359, the opening of ch23 - I think DMB
and I have the same copy):
"... it is not just a question of generously making allowances for this
mythical and magical background by portraying it as some kind of primitive
mire which Empedocles tried, but ultimately failed, to rise out of in his
aspirations to become a rational philosopher. On the contrary, the very
framework as well as the purpose of Empedocles' poetry was clearly
initiatory and magical. We are faced here with a choice of either making
Empedocles a pawn in the simplistic game of interpreting early ancient
philosophy as a one-directional evolution from so-called 'irrationality' to
'rationality', from mythos to logos; or of attempting to understand him in
his own context and on his own terms. This second option is for the
historian and scholar; the first is for the fiction-writer or speculative
philosopher."
In other words, as I read him, Kingsley is arguing that the
logos-over-mythos position is untenable - except for the 'fiction-writer of
speculative philosopher' (Pirsig?). He sees the majority position in
Classical studies as presupposing an ideal rationality, briefly attained by
Athenian philosophers, but arising out of a 'primitive' mentality, and then
lapsing back into mystical superstition and magic. As he puts it, modern
scholarship 'prefers instead to drink without precaution from a tainted
stream'. The whole book is a project aimed at showing the profound
continuities between Pythagorean (Orphic) magic, myths and ritual, as best
represented in the figure of the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles, and
Plato's perspective, especially as set out in the Phaedo.
Kingsley writes (p80):
"...the modern distinction between myth and science is hardly if at all
applicable to Plato's time. And as for Plato himself, he is the one writer
to whom one definitely should not look for any such clear-cut distinction.
Certainly he was interested at a theoretical level in distinguishing between
mythos and logos; between 'myth' as the conveyer of ideas that are beyond
logical demonstration, and the positive certainty arrived at by reasoned
argument. Even here, however, the matter is complicated by Plato's refusal
to draw a clear line between mythos and logos, and by his repeated
insistence that what to a superficial person is just a 'myth' may have all
the decisive attributes of a logos for someone whose perception runs
deeper."
This fully agrees with DMB's wider project of grounding Plato in the wider
religion and culture of his time (a project I agree with), which was the
substance of this thread. As DMB put it, "there was nothing secular about
Plato's world". Kingsley emphatically supports that position.
Yet DMB also argues the following (from a 23/12 post):
"Surely Plato and the papyrus author are condeming those lower ritualistic
kind in favor of the philosophical variety... It seems we can see the
beginning of the split between mythos and logos. The rituals and myths don't
need to be understood or explained in intellectual terms for them to
"work". They did so for a long time before intellect ever came along. And
yet the ability to ALSO understand and explain the meaning of the rites and
rituals, especially on the part of priests, seems like an improvement over
those who can't. And it seems to me that the difference isn't just a matter
of levels, but also the priests ability to see the DQ that these rituals
portray."
It seems to me that DMB is importing the MoQ's levels into Kingsley's
account. Kingsley is explicitly eschewing a clear division between mythos
and logos, between what are claimed as 'philosophical' elements of
Empedocles' thought and the 'magical' or 'ritual' elements. Kingsley writes
(p8) "...one of the main conclusions of this book will be that the
insistence during the past century and more on segregating Empedocles'
'philosophical' or 'scientific' interests from his religious or mythological
concerns is not only inappropriate but also completely untenable. We need
now to approach him, and his peers, through and beyond these anachronistic
dichotomies."
I think this provides one conclusion, and one interesting line of further
enquiry.
The conclusion is that Kingsley's account cannot be reconciled with the
logos-over-mythos position (ie the MoQ view of intellect); whereas it
directly supports the mythos-over-logos (ie shrub/tree) position. Kingsley's
account is incompatible with the account of intellect provided in Lila; it
is compatible with the account in ZMM. So, for DMB, I suggest there is a
choice to be made about which of these favourite authors you prefer.
The interesting line of enquiry is this: if Kingsley is correct - and his
book is pretty impressive and authoritative - then we need to rethink the
whole question of 'the birth of the intellectual level', and related
elements. In particular, if DMB's account of the intellectual level - as
articulated in our many debates, and which I think is legitimately derived
from Pirsig - is correct, then Plato is not working at the intellectual
level. Which is, to put it mildly, a counter-intuitive position.
Thanks again to DMB for pointing me in the direction of an excellent book.
It certainly supports part of your approach.
Sam
"A good objection helps one forward, a shallow objection, even if it is
valid, is wearisome." Wittgenstein
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 11 2003 - 19:26:47 GMT