From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Nov 18 2003 - 17:19:28 GMT
DMB, Platt ... Paul?
On 16 Nov. you wrote:
> Platt said:
> As for voices of gods, I subscribe to the much simpler (and IMO more
> plausible) explanation that Gods were invented to explain causes which
> were otherwise inexplicable to primitive man, like kids attributing
> thunder and lightning to Gods having a bowling game in the sky. Man,
> including primitive man, cannot survive when plagued by doubts.
> dmb says:
> You subscribe to a view that many people share. But I think its quite
> wrong. Its a very naive vision of religion and mythology as bad
> archaic science. On top of the idea that this is the condescending
> view of modern science projecting its own values in the most
> inappropriate places, it ignores what the MOQ says, namely that the
> social and intellectual levels are two completely different levels of
> reality with completely differenat aims and values. Even outside of
> the MOQ, there are lots of very well informed people who could do a
> much better job than me in explaining why this view is so badly
> mistaken. Jaynes and Livio are just the two that leap to mind, but if
> you're sincerely interested in the way pre-historic people looked at
> things, there is no shortage of scholarship. I would also suggest
> Peter Kingsley's "ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY, MYSTERY, AND MAGIC: Empedocles
> and Pythagorean Tradition" or anything by Joseph Cambpell.
I agree completely with this, Platt's reading must have been highly
selective (as our readings usually are:). It looks like a most convincing
explanation of the upheaval that evidently took place around the
Mediterranean Ocean in this period. To doubt if this really was god(s)
is to miss the point completely. Intellect's really (objective vs
subjective) hadn't yet emerged (not to be mistaken for the TRUTH
concept however ...for Platt's benefit)
Ovations for your presentation of the Egyptians and other Ancient
Cultures' prowess. Just one comment here:
> The point being that this serves as an example of what Pirsig
> means when he says they had intellect, but that their culture was not
> intellectual.
I still question the use of the term "intellect" outside the intellectual
level because it gives the impression of patterns before the level (life
before biology ...etc.) "Intelligence" is obviously what is meant and I
wonder why Pirsig shuns this term? Is it because it introduces
something not covered by the four static levels? (the encyclopedia
analogy) I don't think there is any great danger here; the Quality gem
may have many facets. It (intelligence) may be one.
> The aim and purpose of their so-called science had
> absolutely nothing to do with science as we understand the term. It
> served a religious function, a social function and was not intended as
> a tool for the investigation of nature.
Yes, and yes again!
> It wasn't even concieved as
> such. And its no accident that the keepers of this so-called science,
> a very misleading term when used to describe what they were doing,
> were priests.
Right, this also demonstrates the "intellect out of society" point.
Sincerely.
Bo
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 : Tue Nov 18 2003 - 17:24:31 GMT