From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun May 18 2003 - 18:50:01 BST
Sam, Phyllis and all:
Sam quoted:
From the latest 'Economist', a review of AC Grayling's "What is Good? The
search for the best way to live":
"AC Grayling, an academic philosopher, has a fiercer subject in view: he
wants to track men's
arguments about the nature and source of morality by expounding the evils of
religion and lauding
the progress of science. Religion, of course, deserves all it gets from him
as a means of oppression
and a cause of war. Darkness descends for Mr Grayling, as for most modern
philosophers, around the
5th Century, lifting only with the Enlightenment. Even after this, the
struggle against recidivism,
superstition and fundamentalism can never be relaxed for a moment...."
Sam added:
Although the 'mythology' was in my own words, I didn't make it up. For
background, see the Midgley
book I referenced, or perhaps Roy Porter's 'Enlightenment'. Or a newspaper
article by Dawkins or
Dennett or similar.
dmb says:
I have no doubt. I'm sure you didn't make it up. As already pointed out,
this light and darkness imagery is completely ubiquituos in the language and
culture. I mean, you're no DIM wit. Some would even say you're BRIGHT. But
this notion DAWNED on another long ago and the TORCH has been passed along
for ages. :-) But seriously, my point was only that the use of such imagery
in historical narratives does not erase the distinction between myth and
history or myth and science. I mean, you're not really DENYING that Europe's
Dark Age is an actual literal historical event, are you? You're not denying
the events we call the enlightenment the scientific revolution or historical
change in general, are you? The most basic distinction between myth and
history is revealed by the non-symbolic nature of historical narrative.
(Even if history really is rather thrilling and dramatic, that's ok. Don't
forget that its right and proper for intellectual fields to include and
incorporate myth and the other third level values. I mean, one of Pirsig's
main criticisms of SOM is that it fails to do that. The MOQ even says our
4th level patterns are derived from there, so that there is a kind of
inescapable connection.)
As one with a deep and abiding interest in both history and mythology, I
think the distinction is clear. Sure, both tell stories, but the same is
true of both newspapers and dreams. Are newspapers just inky dreams then?
:-)
Would I be correct to think this assertion goes along with, at least
roughly, what you called "the meta-narrative of rational primacy"? That
looks like essentially the same argument in a different form, no? And this
also goes along with your preference for the bush/tree analogy for the
social/intellectual distinction, no? All of which adds up to the SOM view,
that the difference is only like what's in the left and right hand pockets,
which is much less of a distinction than Pirsig makes, no?
Pirsig seems very well aware of the same imagery and uses it throughout
Lila. Remember how he talks about the dharmkaya light? The Victorian torch
at Blake, the fancy private school of his youth? The way he ponders,
romanticizes and then dismisses the flight of the moth toward the light in
his New York City hotel room? Does he not describe his encounter with peyote
in terms of an "illumination"? He seems quite lucid and fluent with such
language and would hardly describe him as enthralled with mythological
images. I think he puts intellect above society and tradition without
blindly buying into the dogma of the "church of reason", if you will. Reason
and rationality is not the supreme value, of course. Intellect is only the
highest in terms of static quality. Not just a bigger version of social
values, but a different and higher form of evolution...
Pirsig (Lila chapter 22)
Now, it should be stated at this point that the MOQ SUPPORTS this dominance
of intellect over society, It says intellect is a higher form of evolution
than society; therefore, it is a more moral level than society.
Not only is it more evolved and more moral, but intellectual values and
products reflect the divinity just like the rest of creation. Its not just
some cold, calculating mechanism like our favorite Vulcan. Don't get me
wrong. I know how crazy it was. The French revolutionaries smashed alters
and erected temples to reason. Comte literally wanted to be the "Pope of
Positivism". There were some absolutely indisputable cases of people pushing
reason with a passion and conviction that can only be compared to religious
fanaticism. But I don't think Pirsig is one of them and the MOQ is light
years from that.
PIRSIG (ZMM page 16)
The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a
digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top
of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think otherwise is to demean
the Buddha -which is to demean oneself.
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 : Sun May 18 2003 - 18:51:18 BST