From: Phaedrus Wolff (PhaedrusWolff@carolina.rr.com)
Date: Sun Dec 19 2004 - 02:59:57 GMT
Hi dmb,
You explained it better than I ever could. It is a conflict between social
patterns and the intellect. I agree he does place the intellect above
social, but also offers the idea that the intellect should be careful in
discreating these social patterns -- maybe even the evil social patterns (I
can't say for sure) -- as DQ is better served when it does not destroy a
culture's social patterns, but advances them by discreating one pattern at a
time.
I think this;
Pirsig in ZAMM:
"Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Laws of logic, of
mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed
thing is a human invention, including the idea that it 'isn't' a
human invention. The world has no existence whatsoever outside the
human imagination."
was taken our of context. I think the point he was making was about one of
the kids at the YMCA camp believing in Indian ghosts, of which he took back
his reply -- "He was just spoofing you." to Chris when he realized it was
Indian ghosts.
It is to show that modern man's understanding is no less ghosts than the
Indian's.
Earlier he replied to this;
<snip>
(Chris said)"Tom White Bear said his mother and dad told him not to believe
all that stuff. But he said his grandmother whispered it was true anyway, so
he believes it." . . .
"Sure," I say, reversing myself, "I believe in ghosts too." . . .
"It's completely natural," I say, "to think of Europeans who believed in
ghosts or Indians who believed in ghosts as ignorant. The scientific point
of view has wiped out every other view to a point where they all seem
primitive, so that if a person today talks about ghosts or spirits he is
considered ignorant or maybe nutty. It's just all but completely impossible
to imagine a world where ghosts can actually exist." . . .
"My own opinion is that the intellect of modern man isn't that superior. IQs
aren't that much different. Those Indians and medieval men were just as
intelligent as we are, but the context in which they thought was completely
different. >>>Within that context of thought,<<< ghosts and spirits are
quite as real as atoms, particles, photons and quants are to a modern man.
In that sense I believe in ghosts. Modern man has his ghosts and spirits
too, you know."
</snip>
Later on, he says;
"If that law of gravity existed," I say, "I honestly don't know what a thing
has to do to be nonexistent. It seems to me that law of gravity has passed
every test of nonexistence there is. You cannot think of a single attribute
of nonexistence that that law of gravity didn't have. Or a single scientific
attribute of existence it did have. And yet it is still `common sense' to
believe that it existed."
It is my opinion that he is showing the limitations of scientific knowledge
(proof), such as Einstein proving Newton inadequate with his theory of
relativity in time and space, and Hawkings coming along and saying now that
maybe Newton was right to begin with that time is constant, and the
difference might come from where you observe the time in space. He said
something to the nature of Astrologers may be as competant as scientists in
these fields.
It is my opinion that we place too much confidence in science, or at least
those involved place too much confidence in science, as it doesn't matter
how much data you observe, you cannot know that the next data you observe
will offer the same results. It seems that the word 'Theory' in academia has
been redefined to mean fact. It is as close to a reality as we can come at
the moment, in our culture. But, our faith in science in general may be a
matter of over-confidence.
To the Western culture, Buddhism appears to be idealistic, but quantum
physics may prove Buddhism much closer to 'The Truth' we are searching for.
I'll stop here as I can see I am starting to ramble.
Chin
Chin
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 7:33 PM
Subject: RE: MD Is Morality Relative?
> MSH and all:
>
> Pirsig in ZAMM:
> "Laws of nature are human inventions, like ghosts. Laws of logic, of
> mathematics are also human inventions, like ghosts. The whole blessed
> thing is a human invention, including the idea that it 'isn't' a
> human invention. The world has no existence whatsoever outside the
> human imagination."
>
> msh asks:
> Yes, this comment has always troubled me. "The world has no
> existence whatsoever outside the human imagination." Is Pirsig an
> Idealist or an Empiricist or what? I can see how the laws of nature
> and logic might be said to exist in our imaginations, but everything?
> Is this just some poetic enthusiasm from way back, near the beginning
> of ZMM, to support the ol' ghosts around the campfire setting?
> What do y'all think he means? Is there something OUT THERE, or not?
>
> dmb says:
> Paul Turner has helped me out on these sorts of issues and I think he's
> absent from the forum mostly because he's working some MOQ things up. Not
> sure, but I believe he's been thinking hard on this one. As I understand
it,
> this notion is carried all the way through to recent comments from Pirsig.
I
> recall a quote, that may come from Lila's Child, where Pirsig says
something
> like... The MOQ says that the idea that inorganic reality came before
> intellectual reality is a very good idea, one of the best ideas there is,
> but the MOQ still says ideas come first. ...And if I didn't hack it up too
> much, I think the idea here is that the world as we know it is our
creation.
> This is not to be taken in terms of SOM, where a subject thinks of the
world
> and POOOF! it magically appears. No, this idea has to be understood in
terms
> of mysticism. This idea that things emerge out of no-thing-ness, that
> subjects and objects are intellectual constructions we create out of this
> void, this undifferentiated aesthetic continuum. Its Idealism in a very
> broad sense, a collective, mutual arising sense, not a solipsistic, new
age,
> we each create our own reality way. Remember his idea of defining sanity
as
> simply buying into the culture's assumptions, of thinking about reality
the
> way most everyone else does? Its the idea that these constructions are a
> social, cultural, collective thing. As he says, a culture of one defines
> insanity. At the same time, there are any number of cultures, and they
don't
> always agree about what real and what came before what.
>
> And so by the time we get to Lila and we get a metaphysics that consists
of
> more than just one word, we see that these constructions, these ghosts,
> these products of the imagination can also be called social and
intellectual
> static patterns and that in terms of static patterns, they are as real as
> rocks and trees. This is where Empiricism comes in two ways. At the bottom
> of it all is the direct, pre-intellectual value awareness that gives rise
to
> all our static constructions, this is radical empiricism, based on
> experience at the very root of all things. And then there is also the
> expanded empiricism that sensory experience to include experience of the
> mind and the mystical vision that is neither of the body or the mind.
>
> You can probably tell that I have struggled to make sense of it too, but
> maybe this little pile of puke will help anyway.
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sun Dec 19 2004 - 03:20:47 GMT