From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Mar 17 2003 - 01:05:36 GMT
Sam, Wim and all:
DMB said:
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.
Sam responded:
Doubtless we will talk about what 'their kind of intellect' means, but yes,
agreed.
DMB answers:
A pre-SOM intellect, one not yet alienated from its parent, the social
level, a philosophy not divorced from myth. As products of scientific
secular Western culture, our intellectual constructions don't have that cozy
relationship with the social level, so much so that it takes a book like
Kingsley's or Pirsig's to even see what one looks like.
Sam said:
I like the phrase (and the concept) 'included even as they are transcended'.
But isn't that a way of talking about 'shrub/tree'?
DMB says:
OK, we've got two rival analogies about the evolutionary relationship
between the social and intellectual levels, the shrub/tree vs. the discrete
levels. The first one implies that no definate line should be drawn, the
more evolved version merely being a larger or more mature version of the
same creature. The second one says that the more evolved level is an
entirely different creature, not just a more mature one. Totally aside from
the fact that Wilber was talking about levels when he said it, we have to
have the line. Not because its a better idea just for good theoretical
reason, although that's true too, but because it is a description of the
world. That line marks one of the main disasters of Modernity, the
alienation of science from religion and vice versa. I think the line has
already been drawn far too well.
Sam said:
As above. What I can't understand is how you can say this, and then deny
that Christianity can function at the intellectual level. If 'myth and
mysticism' is valid information - why isn't theology? doubtless we will
pursue that. ............... I just think you're unfair with regard to
Christianity, not giving it the same respect that you give every other
'mythical' perspective. As has doubtless become clear, I don't think that
Christianity is unintellectual. What drives my engagement with you is that I
don't see why you do. (In other words, I can imagine complete secularists
and rationalists saying that Christianity is unintellectual, but you quite
clearly reject most of their assumptions, on which they ground that
description. So there seems to be an inconsistency there. I don't have any
expectations that you would embrace Christianity (the mind boggles) but I
don't see why you should reject it so strongly.)
DMB says:
How can Christianity be valid, but not function at the intellectual level?
Myth and theology present valid information, but its not intellectual
information. Doctrines are not valid as facts, they are valid as doctrines.
Myths are not valid as facts, they are valid as myths. Recall how Pirsig
says you've only experienced the mass when the bread is Actually the body of
Christ. That's when it works and is valid. Intellect can't ACTUALLY believe
it. Nor can it accept virgin births, rising from death to live again,
eternal life, fire and brimestone, the apocalypse or salvation. As myths
represent some of the most profound and important insights into human nature
that have ever existed, but as facts they are impossible non-sense.
Unfair to Christians? Again, its descriptive. The scientific secular world
was built on top of the Holy Roman Empire, so when we talk about the
difference between social and intellectual values Christianity is nearly
impossible to avoid. And why, for the love of relevance, would we want to?
Its about all I've got and can scarcely think of Buddhism, except in the
terms of my own Western, Christian society and language. But I try not to
give it any special status when reading Campbell, but that's probably not
really possible.
Reject it so strongly? This is not a rejection of religion. Insisting that
it is at the third level is not a subjegation of religion. It is an
explanation of the nature of religion and the kind of consciousness in which
it functions properly. My attempts to draw a line between third and fourth
level values are not so one-sided as you think. In my view, drawing that
line as a way to get at their evolutionary relationship lends a clarity
that, in the end, does them both a great service. It repairs the intellect
and rescues religion as an indispensible parent of that intellect. That's
the differnce between the MOQ and atheistic secular rationalists, which is
basically the SOM view. Pirsig says that intellect keeps us from following
tradition blindly, but isn't meant to reject it either. We have to go back
and look again to see what it was trying to do, and what it did accomplish.
The is where Campbell and Jung can help. The philosophy of relgion. Any kind
of cross cultural analysis would help. Anything along those lines is better
than maintaining the Modern assumptions about the myths and beliefs of
previous ages.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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 : Mon Mar 17 2003 - 01:06:53 GMT