DONNY RESPONDS TO VARIOUS POSTS BY MARY, XCTO, FINTAN AND JOHNATHAN
*************************
MARY, I'm glad you posted this:
_______________
I'm reminded of the Star Trek prime directive. For those of you
unfamiliar
with it, it states that we do not have the right to impose our laws,
morals,
ideas, or technology upon any other civilizations we may encounter. The
prime directive says do not interfere. The implied subtext is that we may
not know what we are doing! I can imagine other sentient beings in the
Universe for whom our concept of morality, art, and certainly beauty may
not
apply. Our hierarchy for the Static levels may not even hold for them.
That does not mean that our concepts are wrong, or that theirs are. It
just
means that those kind of concerns are Relative - not Universal Quality.
_________________
I'm still not sure that this is what Ken means by Universal Q,
however... but if you're taking "universal" to mean Absolute, not
relative, standing over-against nothing... then only pure (Dynamic)
Quality -- 'from thr point of view of the Buddha' (as RMP puts it) --
counts. Everything in the realm of sq is less than "universal."
But, let's step back and look at what's going on here. These
alians which do not share our valus of art, morality, etc. -- how do they
REALLY exist? They really exist, right now, in the present moment, as
abstract imaginings -- projections made by us. Surely, what is --
metaphysically -- more real is the activity of projecting. You mention
them; we entertain our own pictures of them... That's what's "realy going
on here, now.
The same goes for Ken's whole Big Bang and the 15 billion years
between us and it... that's a PICTURE that we are generating/entertaining
in the here and now. That's how it really exists.
Remember: existance = experience! And we always experience only
the present situation. The past exists (is experienced) only in memory
and recapitualtion and the future only through our hopes and predictions.
How does X exist? = How is it experienced? What are we really
experiencing?
XCTO (I keep wanting to type "Xacto"),
First: The Copernican debate had nothing to do w/ the earth being
round, it was about the helo- vs. geo-centric universe. Everyone knew the
earth was round. I't consistantly depicted that way in illustrated
theological and alchemical texts from the fall of Rome on down. Even in
Columbus' time everyone know the earth was round -- The debat was over how
big it was. Ptollamy had calculated it pretty acuratlly a long time
ago... But Columbus did his own calculations and screwed them up. He
thought the earth was a third smaler than it actually is. It just turned
out that right where he predicted india would be, America was. It was a
*felix culpa* for Europe and a disaster for Americans, but... Anyway,
Columbus died w/o ever knowing that he had discovered a new continant. All
that time he thought he was going to India.
However, your analogy still stands and it is a good one. I see
what you mean.
As for your 'points-of-view' (lets call these "moral platforms" to
distinguish it from PoV=pattrens of value)... I think I can buy that. It
all just depends on how much you want to sub-divide "society." "The West"
is certainly one social-type. And yes, the USA is one society... but the
South is also a society/culture, and East Tennesse has it's own culture,
the University of Tennessee has it's own culture (usually consumed by
football -- we're going to the Fiesta Bowl this year undefeated), and UT's
art department has it's own little culture and the senior drawing class
could also be said to consist of a "little society" of 10.
As you go on down, you could say each group creates it's own moral
platform and this also gives t a certain "intellectual flavor," I supose.
But I think it also needs to be stressed that the smaller we go the more
metaphorical our use of "society" becomes... and thus we increase the
degree to which we are speaking by analogy... until we get on down to the
point where we say 'Lila is a society of one,' and now that's not really
true at all -- It's an illustrating analogy or metaphore... and should be
taken as a very loose one at that. These smaler groups arn't "really"
societies and their intellectual flavorings arn't "really" IntPoVs.
FINTAN writes:
______________
After the fall all is now muddied.
Now only love can save us.
Not Intellect, i'm afraid.
______________
I don't think we need saving, actually. That's the whole idea of
*lila*. The divine enters the world of pairs of opposites, of conflict,
of temporal experience, of loss, loss, loss... WILLINGLY. W/ joy. As a
game. *Felix culpa* ("happy accident") is term used a lot in art, but
originally it comes from -- I think -- Agustine, who described the Fall as
a "happy Fall" (*felix culpa*). This is because time -- the universe --
starts w/ Adam's fall. W/o that there'd just be Adam and Eve in the
garden forever still, and it's earthly paradise but so what!?
You're not going to save the world. Love's not going to save the
world. Intellect's not. The world is doing fine as it is. Sure it's
scarry and sometimes violent... but it's also exciting and dynamic.
Personally... I love it. Too bad you can't. All of this, right down to
the H-bomb, is a gift "God" has given us -- given himself.
Back to FINTAN:
_________________
>Robinson Caruso on his
>island, building a hut and fire and snares to catch food...
Carusoe: The pinnacle of the intellectual enlightenment is of course
completely ALONE on a desert island. Ha, ha, ha.
Except for a slave of course.
Perfect metaphor for the society created by the enlightenment.
Intellect my a**.
__________________
Fintan, if you read my post, I said, very clearly that Carusoe is
*not* an example of Intelectual value rhythms. That was the meaning of the
whole post. Also, that I think multiculturalism and freedom for all is an
inevitable outgrowth of the Enlightenment's ideals of freedom of speach,
thought, religion... freedom to govern yourself, and so on. Carusoe's
slave is a representation of those SOCIAL values. You talk about how bad
intellect is but then you make "intellect" to mean anything you think is
bad -- not what best fits Pirsig's metaphysic. If we take Pirsig's sq
hierarchy, then in what sense has IntPoVs "evolved" out of society? You've
never bothered to try and address that.
If you're not going to make any effort to understand
other people's positions then don't be supprised when nobody *cares* about
yours.
JOHNATHAN wrote:
__________________
DONNY has made several illuminating contributions explaining how our
whole system of logic is (merely) social convention.
___________________
Be careful here. Each value level is supposeed to take on a life
of it's own. A living organism is made up of "matter" obaying the
laws/values of physics... but the Darwinian values -- the law of the
jungle -- are -- not indipendent, for they are dependent on
physics/chemistry -- in many ways atonomus. Similerly, a society rises
out of bilogical organisms -- They are it's componant parts and it is
dependent upon them, but societies also have a "life of their own." "The
American Way" is something different from the gobbs of homosapians who
have gathered here for food, shelter, clothing and reproduction. Many
Americans are willing to sacrofice their lives for *America* -- thus it's
overiding biological instincts/values.
Now... Can we say that "the Truth" has a life that is
atonomus to the life of America or the West? Sure it's continued exstance
is -dependent- on the continuation of this Western culture w/ it's values
of truth, justice, and freedom of thought and expression... but, then, the
West needs those warm bodies for it to go on, and those warm bodies need
the chemicals and atoms and quarks and what-nots... But isn't the hole
idea behind Science that the truth is the truth is the truth and it
doesn't matter who knows it or names it or whatever? Isn't the idea that
scientists must bow to the truth inspite of their own social/moral/ego
prefrences? "Well, you've proven it. I don't like it. But I can't
disprove what you say."
I'm just asking questions here. You might be right. Maybe the
question is: Do the facts ever "speak for themselves" -- as if speaking
*through* us.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
Donny
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:43 BST