Hi. I'll try to make it read like a conversation. You know, my responses and
answers will be interspersed...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan B. Marder [SMTP:marder@agri.huji.ac.il]
> Sent: Sunday, April 02, 2000 2:36 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Mysticism & Rituals
>
>
> I must be extremely dense, because I still don't understand your
> argument as to why that teepee experience should be considered mystical
> and the bar-room experience not.
>
[David Buchanan] Yes, I'm beginning to wonder if my efforts are in
vain. The two contrasting paragraphs that describe the two contrasting
scenes are not MY characterizations, those are the colors Pirsig uses to
help convey the differences. I hoped that you would recognize from the
material we just read. You didn't do your homework, you scoundrel. (or
forgive me if you have a short-term memory problem.) All of it was right out
of the book, and "that bitch, Debbie" is a quote, not a reference to my
least favorite character. Anyway, JM quoted a fragment of those contrasting
paragraphs and his comments follow it.
> DAVID B.
> > At the bar he was motivated by biology, which doesn't care about how
> > loud, rude, tacky or fake she is. There's conflict with "that bitch
> > Debbie" and the Victorian moralizer doesn't like it much either.
>
> Excuse me, but the bar-room isn't a biological pattern, nor the music
> nor the dancing.
> The "bitch" label put on poor Debbie is a social label, and the
> "Victorian moralizer" is playing a social role. Dave, it seems to me
> that you conveniently label the bar experience as merely biological so
> that you can downplay it vs. the teepee ceremony that you call social+
> (a repeat of another thread when you delegitimized a certain historical
> decision by labeling it as merely social rather than intellectual.)
>
[David Buchanan] Oh, no. Pardon ME. I didn't say the barroom was
biological, I was refering to Pirsig's descriptions of his own lust for Lila
at the bar. And I never said the teepee scene was social+, whatever that
means. Where do you get this stuff?
The bar scene is about getting drunk and getting laid. The result is
social conflict and construction of his metaphysics has to be put on hold.
The teepee scene was about discovering his other half and spinning vast
intellectual webs. This is what Pirsig tells us explicitly. And I think its
pretty clear that the results of the bar we're good only on the biological
level, but it was socially negative, intellectually negative, except as an
example, and spirituslly useless. The results of the teepee were socially
good, intellectually productive and spiritually satisfying. Ironically, the
teepee experience was more genuinely intimate than the sexual experience.
> As for Lila's fake painted fingernails, are they more fake than the
> paint on the Indians' faces? IMO, the emphasis on the teepee and peyote
> and the dismissal of the bar scene is a clear example of romanticizing
> the exotic.
>
[David Buchanan] Again, these characterizations are Pirsig's, not
mine. He says they spoke directly from the heart and didn't imitate
anything. That's was their unceremonious movements and speech are all about.
And it is Pirsig who says the part of him that was attracted to Lila just
didn't care about her lack of originality. He's telling us which kind of
experience has real quality and which is just a cheap knock-off of quality.
> As a final point, I note that Pirsig's novel presenting the MoQ was not
> entitled "John Wooden Leg" nor "Ten Bears" and not named "Dusenbury". He
> called the book "Lila", the name of the woman he picks up in the bar.
>
[David Buchanan] Oh, please. These characters are being discussed
simply because they are in the first three chapters. And he calls the book
Lila because of the central question, Does Lila have quality?
> ROGER asked us to define our view on mysticism and here I agree with
> DAVID B. that the dictionary definitions are completely inadequate. My
> dictionary defines mysticism thus:
> "1a. A spiritual discipline aiming at union with the divine through deep
> meditation or trancelike contemplation ..."
> [Not a useful definition unless we can agree what the divine is]
> b. The experience of such communion, as described by mystics.
> [Now I see - for a definition of mysticism, just ask a mystic!]
>
[David Buchanan] Think of the "divine" as the ultimate mystery
behind the world of visible things, not some god or the other. So instead of
"union with the divine" we call it "indentification with DQ". Yes, just ask
a mystic. Pirsig's Radical empiricism ranks this kind of direct experience
as one of the most real kinds of experience.
> 2. Any belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or
> intellectual apprehension but central to being and directly accessible
> to intuition.
> [Rejected by radical empiricism which regards intuition as a legitimate
> part of perception]
>
[David Buchanan] Um, if it is directly accessable to intuition, and
radical empiricism regards intuition as legitimate, how is it then rejected?
You mixed silly scoundrel.
> 3. Confused and groundless speculation; superstitious self-delusion.
> [Obviously you favourite Dave;-)]
>
> None of the above provide a suitable working definition for our
> purposes. (Neither do any other Dictionary definitions I have seen). One
> solution is to avoid the word mysticism altogether.
>
[David Buchanan] Avoid the word?! By your reasoning we should drop
the word metaphysics too. Dictionaries are inadequate with that word for our
purposes, so we'l just have to discuss the OQ instead of the MOQ. Please
tell me that you're kidding.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:41 BST