Hi David & gang,
First of all I want to apologize for sending a post with the entire
original message attached! It had scrolled off the screen and I
didn't even remember that it was there until AFTER I hit the send
button. Well, first sign of old age and all that.
Now down to business. David, you said yesterday:
> I'm guessing we have different ideas about the meaning of the words
> "mythos" and "logos" and your question arises from that. Do we agree
> that they correspond to the social and intellectual levels respectively?
No, I don't believe the mythos corresponds to or defines the social
level, and here's why. The levels are only a platform built at the
pleasure of the intellectual level itself. They are an invention of
SO logic for use by SO logic; useful only because we are incapable of
understanding Dynamic Quality directly. They give us the
comprehensive framework our intellect demands for any kind of
understanding of the MOQ, our Universe, or ourselves. The levels are
very useful, but they aren't the MOQ itself. I'd bet we agree on
that. But there's more. I believe that all the levels represent
somewhat arbitrary divisions of reality. Yes, I agree that the
mythos is very old, that it's most likely at or near the foundation
of the social level, and that it has permeated all human society
through all time, but I also believe the social level has grown and
evolved from that mythic base.
It's true, the mythos is still there, and colors our perception of
everything else about the social level and it's intellectual child;
but just because the mythos itself is static doesn't mean the social
level can't change and grow on it's own. There's more to the social
level than the mythos.
> Simply put, I think its beyond the power of the intellect to really
> change the mythos.
Ok, you're right. the intellect can't change the mythos, but it can
change the social level.
> It seems to me that the three lowest levels can only
> be changed "naturally", that is Dynamically. The only way those three
> levels can evolve is through the action of Dynamic Quality. All change
> at those levels occurs unconsciously, just as they did before the fourth
> level evolved. The emergence of the fourth level did not change the
> nature of the other three levels in this respect.
What do you mean here? The levels don't change through a disembodied
natural dynamic force. All evolve in exactly the same way the
biological level has - changing by having learned from their
mistakes. The social level having evolved so much that it's created
its own monster - the intellectual level.
> But there are several reasons why a person would think otherwise. The
> intellect thinks it has the ability to change all things, to "conquer
> nature". Or so it seems. But actually its ability to manipulate reality
> is only in a localized sense and then only on the surface of things. In
> the case of inorganic patterns of value, for example All the intellect
>can do is take advantage of the
> inherent structure and qualities of the patterns of value.
Yes! Each level, having grown out of the one before, can only effect
change on it's parent. Intellect can't control biology. Only the
social level can do that. Biology manipulates inorganic patterns to
please itself. The social and intellectual can't do that. That's
the beauty of Pirsig's construction of the levels. Each one has to
play by the rules or risk chaos. Ingenious!
> The quick and profound changes in the Western world, as I understand it,
> have taken place only on the intellectual level and included superficial
> manipulations of social patterns. For example, the Buddha was said to
> have been born straight out of his mothers' heart. They say she felt no
> pain and the little Buddah could walk and talk immediately after being
> born. There is a story about a Greek god who was said to have sprung
> directly from his mothers' head. Of course you've heard about the god
> who was born of a virgin. These apparently different stories of the
> births of gods come from three different cultures who all share the same
> mythos, they are all from Western cultures. The underlying mythos is the
> same in all three stories.
Yes, they are all the same stories. I would have serious concern for
the validity of MOQ if they were not! But that doesn't mean the
social level hasn't changed. You don't believe any of those stories
and neither do I. There was a time when everyone did. That's what
the intellectual level has done to the social. Today I won't be
burned at the stake for saying so. That's the first step.
Best wishes,
Mary
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 - 16:02:49 BST