From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Feb 21 2004 - 08:32:12 GMT
DMB and MD
20 Feb. you cited Pirsig:
> "That was entirely within one code - the social code. Phaedrus thought
> that code was good enough as far as it went, but it really didn't go
> anywhere. It didn't know its origins and it didn't know its own
> destinations, and not knowing them it had to be exactly what it was:
> hopelessly static, hopelessly stupid, a form of evil in itself. Evil.
> ..If he'd called it that 150 years ago he might have gotten himself
> into some real trouble. ..But today its hardly a risk. Its more a
> cheap shot.Everybody thinks those Victorian moral codes are stupid and
> evil, or old-fashioned at least, except maybe for a few religious
> fundamentalists and ultra-right-wingers and ignorant uneducated people
> like platt." LILA end of ch 13
> "It was this issue of intellect vs society that made the Scopes trial
> of 1925 such a journalistic sensation. In that trial a Tennessee
> schoolteacher, John Scopes, was chaged with illegally teaching
> Darwinian evoluion. ...But in 1925 his lawyer, Clarence Darrow was
> just taking easy shot at a toothless tiger. Only religious fanatics
> and ignorant Tennessee hillbillies opposed the teaching of evolution.
> ...Church bigots, pillars of society who for centuries had viciously
> attacked and defamed intellectuals who disagreed with them, were now
> getting some of it back." LILA ch 22
Here intellect is seen as the SKEPTICAL approach (The value of
the Objective over Subjective) and the point you see Pirsig
making has a certain bearing on my own unending debate with
Paul about Oriental "thought" where I maintain that religions are
social-value-patterened regardless how deep thinking they
surrounds themselves with and how many great "philosophers"
are connected with them. While he sees the Upanishads texts as
"an Oriental intellectual level". ....regrettably with backing of
some Pirsig quotes.
As you have commented in this thread before, the mystical
experience may be called experiencing DQ (in moqish) but any
established religion is - as said - social-value-patterned. There is
a scale where the Semitic kind is most conservative (social) to
the said Buddhism but regardless they never cross the line into
Intellect. Blurring this line is to remove all explanatory power from
the MOQ. Thanks David, it's good to hear your usual reasonable
voice again.
IMO
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 : Sat Feb 21 2004 - 08:33:24 GMT