From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Mar 15 2003 - 05:50:39 GMT
Sam and all:
Sam said:
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.
DMB says:
Thank you very much for taking the time to read the book. I'm very excited
about this line of inquiry. I hope to give this post its proper due when I
have more time, but wanted to says a few words....
As I understand Kingley, he's not denying the mythos/logos distinction, he's
saying that guys like Plato and Empedocles have been misunderstood by the
modern scholars who disregard all the myth and magic. The two levels have
become disociated in modern times. There is no real reason why Religion and
Science have to be incompatible, now real reason we can't have magic, myth
and intellect all at the same time. The beauty of Kingsley's book, is that
it presents Plato's total vision. It shows how Myth and mysticism are woven
into the very fabric of their kind of intellect. In Wilberese, they are
included even as they are transcended. In MOQese, the third and fourth
levels are both included in the total worldview. It was not yet fragmented
as it is in our own time. This fragmentation causes a terrible mis-reading
of Plato. He didn't think that way at all, if Kingsley has it right. I think
this sheds losts of light on the MOQ. The aim of my little project, looking
at the cusp period, when the intellect was born and Sophists roamed the
earth, was to show how much the MOQ is like them. Plato and his gang had an
intellect for sure, but pre-SOM. It allowed myth and mysticism as valid
information in a way that SOM never would. Likewise, the MOQ paints the
social as vital, necessary, it allows mysticism - No! More than that, the
MOQ is a kind of intellectual mysiticism, a philosophy that can justify the
value of mysticism in intellecutal terms, like Plato wanted the Sophists to
do.
Sam said:
Thanks again to DMB for pointing me in the direction of an excellent book.
It certainly supports part of your approach.
DMB says:
I'm honored and flattered that you spent the money and took the time. I'm
thrilled that you find it interesting. Looking forward to lots more...
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 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 05:52:11 GMT