From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Mon Oct 06 2003 - 01:35:56 BST
Howdy MOQERS:
For the sake of brevity, I picked a few nuggets. But before I comment on the
letter I'd just like to say that Wim is a very naughty boy. :-)
From ROBERT PIRSIG's letter of 23rd SEPTEMBER 2003: ..........."The
first confusion is between the social title, "Intellectual," and the
intellectual level itself. The statement, "Some intellectuals are not
intellectual at all," becomes meaningful when one recognizes this
difference."
dmb says:
The first sentence here makes me re-evaluate the status of Universities and
organizations like the ACLU. If "Intellectual" is a social title, then any
institution staffed by them must be social too. The second part, if I my
gloat a bit, reminds me of an old assertion I made about William F. Buckley,
that he wasn't really an intellectual at all, but a preacher with a large
vocabulary, that he disguises social level values by putting them into
intellectual clothes. And I love the next nugget for the way it gets at the
relationship between the social and intellectual levels....
"When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity
can be gained by recognizing a parallel with the lower levels. Just as
every biological pattern is also inorganic, ...; so every
intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are
intellectual."
dmb says:
To put it more bluntly, the intellect includes social values in its very
definition. The three previous levels provide everything that intellect
requires for its very existence. It IS all those previous levels - and
something more. And that's what were talking about here: something more.
"Another subtler confusion exists between the word, "intellect," that can
mean thought about anything and the word, "intellectual," where abstract
thought itself is of primary importance. Thus, though it may be assumed
that the Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had intellect, it can be
doubted that theirs was an intellectual culture."
dmb says;
I think the difference here is that the intellectual skills of the Egyptians
were still used for social and biological purposes. Two of Pirsig's other
points spring to mind here. (1) That the original purpose of intellect was
to find food, detect danger and such AND (2) That the first intellectual
concepts were DERIVED from songs, rituals and myths. As I understand it, the
spectacular achievements of the Egyptians, including everything we might
call scholarship, was aimed almost entirely at religious purposes and
filling hungry mouths. But we can see elsewhere that all the skills that it
took to do what the Egyptians achieved, plus something more, became
independent of those values and went off on a purpose of its own. So in the
same way that all of us are social creatures, but only some of us are also
intellectual creatures, all cultures are social, but only some are
intellectual. This difference allows to say that democracy really is better
than fascism, theocracy or monarchy. It goes along way toward explaining the
last 100 years and the conflicts of this historical moment.
"But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies
the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is
conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and
biological patterns and nothing else."
dmb says:
I don't know if I ever dared to say it out loud, but this nugget seems to
support my suspicion that the creation story of Genesis is a specific
example of a social level "cosmology story". Not that this is a profound
revelation, but I did wonder if such a thing would be included, or if he was
talking about something much more primitive. But all this is a tiny thing
compared to this nugget...
"I'm not sure if all of this defines the intellectual level any better
than before, or if any such definition is useful. It may be that the
intellectual level cannot describe itself any better than an eye can
directly see itself, but has to find itself in mirrors of one sort or
another. In a scientific materialist mirror there is no such thing as
intellect since it has no mass or energy that can be objectively
measured. From a philosophic idealist viewpoint there is nothing but
intellect. From a Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of everyday
affairs that one leaves behind upon becoming enlightened and then
rediscovers from a Buddha's point of view."
dmb says;
This last line is the killer - and I think this Zen viewpoint fits is not
only the best fit for the MOQ, but it also says what the hero's journey and
the world's great religions have always said. The story of the Buddha says
that he only achieved release when he gave up all attachments, even the
desire to achieve enlightenment, but once liberated, out of compassion, he
returns - to teach detachment and such. In our own tradition this same exit
and return is depicted as a death and ressurction. Christ sacrifices his
life, achieves heaven and returns to teach. And so it is with all the heros.
The successful journey ultimately lives only by dying first, by giving it
all up, so we may see this death as an expression of the same letting go of
the intellect and the ego-conscousness. And of course the ressurection
depicts the rediscovery of that same intellect.
What springs to mind here is the image of the sock being turned inside out.
This is the sense in which the "law of gravity" is a ghost. Upon
re-discovering the intellect, everything about it takes on a fluid and
transluscent quality. (I think this is why the myths sometimes have the hero
passing through walls and such. Crossing the impossible barrier is a common
motif.) In any case, I think the hero is not just about detachment. There is
also the idea that such characters, and that's potentially any of us, are
the agents of moral regeneration, that this is required to keep the world
constantly refreshed and renewed. We see this well in the Legend of King
Authur, where the land lies barren and infertile until the hero's deed is
done. Only then does the land spring back to life. And I think that there is
a variation on the hero's journey that's most apt here. He realizes what the
translucency and fluidity of these static forms implies: That reality is
infinite, that there is a nearly infinite range of possibilities for the
future and that we're the only ones who could possibly do anything about it.
But that's only how I picture it.
Thanks,
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 Oct 06 2003 - 01:35:13 BST