From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri Jul 18 2003 - 05:21:11 BST
Squonk,
(I've changed the sublect line: was: racism in the forum)
[Scott prev]> Yes. My objection to the idea that the social and intellectual
levels
> are simultaneous is that it doesn't explain how the fourth level is in
> conflict with the third.
>
> squonk: They have to be simultaneous in order to be in conflict.
Let me restate it. You say that the intellectual level has been around since
the social level began. I say that the fourth level only becomes an
identifiable MOQ level when it can be in conflict. That has only been the
case for the last 2500 years. So either one must define "intellect" as
starting with the S/O divide (or, equivalently, with the emergence of the
autonomous individual) or one must use a different word to name the fourth
level.
[Scott prev]> My position is that mythos, past or present, is third level,
and logos
> is fourth level.
>
> squonk: The logos is a new mythos. There is no difference in kind or
> type, only size.
There is still plenty of unreason going around. We are very far from being
ruled by reason.
[Scott prev]> It is when I rationally object to a social pattern
> that I deem harmful (e.g., too much television watching among
> Americans, too much "my country right or wrong", etc.) that (or so I
> hope) I am in a fourth/third level conflict. When I shout "free love"
> I am deluding myself on that score. And so on. There is no evidence
> of this kind of rational objection to the contemporary mythos before
> 500 BC and plenty afterwards. Hence I see the emergence of the fourth
> level at that time.
>
> squonk: I agree, we are talking about rationality not intellect.
It is a choice of how we wish to use the words. As I've said before, if we
use "intellect" as "symbol manipulation" then we must find some other
terminology for identifying the fourth level.
[Squonk prev]> "I feel the intellect is primarily an aesthetic sense of
Quality."
[Scott prev] I would say, rational sense of Quality. Aesthetic sense of
Quality
> currently depends on the S/O divide (this is complicated, so I won't
> go into it now), and -- or so I conjecture -- involves its momentary
> transcendence.
>
> squonk: Rationality is an art in my view. It is primarily aesthetic
> and requires no objects.
"In your view". This is not a common view. It has its point, but Pirsig
never subsumed rationality to art.
[Squonk prev]> "I feel the creations of the intellect can be taken to be the
mythos."
[Scott prev]> I see the creations of the intellect to be science,
philosophy,
> theology, art (not necessarily an exhaustive list). These activities
> depend on the mythos, and change it (so now our current mythos is
> dualistic), but the creations of intellect are -- like the MOQ --
> often in conflict with the mythos. Prior to 500 BC I see no evidence
> of such conflct.
>
> squonk: Quantum mechanics is not dualistic. And Quantum mechanics is
> rational.
So? QM has not yet become integrated into the mythos. I wish it would.
>
[Squonk prev]> "I feel our mythos is dominated by artistic creations of the
intellect
> which happen to be thought of in terms of subjects and objects."
[Scott prev] Why artistic? I am aware that you think of mathematics (and I
presume
> science) as capable of "beauty", and I agree that mathematicians (and
> myself) have expressed this idea, but I think it is a case of using
> "beauty" (or "aesthetic") metaphorically. A work of art shows its
> beauty from the outside, while mathematics shows its Quality from the
> inside. I do not think they are the same. To conflate everything to
> aesthetics is not what Pirsig did (he called his work a Metaphysics
> of Quality, not a Metaphysics of Beauty) which is why I wonder why
> you consider yourself to not be adding anything to Pirsig's work.
>
> squonk: No, i am not adding to Pirsig's work. You are fighting
> Pirsig's work.
Pirsig did not subsume ethics under aesthetics. He did not call his pattern
of ideas a Metaphysics of Beauty. He did not equate Quality and Beauty. He
subtitled Lila, "An Inquiry into Morals", not "An Inquiry into Art". If you
expect me to believe that you are not adding to Pirsig's work, I would
expect some defense of your vocabulary, not a simple denial.
>
[Scott prev]> Then there is the phrase "thought of in terms of subjects and
> objects", and I believe elsewhere you say that the S/O divide is an
> intellectual act. In some esoteric sense it might be, but it is not
> an act that we make consciously, and (I believe) never did. It was an
> evolution of consciousness, not some person's or group of persons'
> idea.
>
> squonk: Differentiation's are of value. What is you and not-you
> involves inorganic, very much noticeable biological, and social
> values. That intellect is called upon to assert the same value
> differentials is hardly to be found surprising is it?
You are assuming that our consciousness has been basically the same since
humans came into existence. I do not assume that, so I doubt that we can
come to any sort of agreement.
[Squonk prev:]> "The metaphysics of Quality is older than ancient Greek
culture, but
> has been modified to include evolution."
>
[Scott prev]> Yes, as Pirsig describes in Ch. 30 of Lila, the basic notion
that all
> comes from Quality is older. This stage Barfield calls "original
> participation". But this "notion" was not an intellectual one, but a
> perceptual one. Our current stage is one where this perceiving of
> Quality has died out (with rare exceptions, one being aesthetic
> moments, another being "Aha" moments), and (following Barfield) it is
> this dying out that makes the intellectual possible.
>
> squonk: The first indications of art (70,000 BC) suggest that
> intellect is an aesthetic appreciation of Quality. Intellect creates
> art in my view, and the one of the primary codes it must follow is
> harmony.
Maybe, but it doesn't address my point. Call it intellect, call it art, call
it anything you want, you still have no third/fourth level conflict until
2500 years ago.
>
[Scott prev]> But, with
> the MOQ (and other philosophies, like Barfield's and Wilber's), one
> sees the intellectual level rediscovering it. When (if) the MOQ
> becomes ingrained (and we are a very long way from that), we
> facilitate the recovery of that Quality in our everyday lives (what
> Barfield calls "final participation"). But it will be different from
> original participation, in that it will be seen as Quality from
> within, not as coming from the gods.
>
> squonk: We are off into Barfield country here aren't we. You will not
> find it at all surprising if i wish to linger in MoQ country? To put
> it simply, i don't think Barfield had a Metaphysics of Quality in his
> back pocket when he wrote this stuff?
Do you really think that Pirsig has written the last word on everything? If
so, you are not paying attention to him, since he said that to do philosophy
is not just studying existing philosophers. In my opinion, Barfield has a
better insight into the significance of the changes in consciousness in the
last 3000 years than Pirsig, since that is what he (Barfield) has focused
on, and so the MOQ should be revised slightly to take advantage of that
insight. Isn't it your opinion that "rationality is an art in my view", and
you wish to modify Pirsig's work accordingly?
- Scott
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 : Fri Jul 18 2003 - 05:30:49 BST