From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 16 2003 - 22:07:19 GMT
Sam and all:
Sam said to Wim: (In the "ritual" thread.)
On 1, I'm not sure that I agree. Does Pirsig anywhere describe a social
level static pattern that could not be described as a 'ritual'? If he does,
then my summary does need to be amended, on 1 and 2. (I'm pretty sure Pirsig
sees religious rituals as only one type of ritual).
Dmb says:
This is a good example of why I don't think we can get at the nature of
ritual with a five point memo. To understand what Pirsig is saying about
ritual, especially as the connecting link to the intellectual level, we have
to go beyond chapter 30 and otherwise take a broader view. Recall, for
example, that prehistoric stone age people preformed rituals all day long,
that it was indistinguishable from knowledge. Rituals aren't exactly
synonymous with the social level, but its something like the essential heart
of it all. To really see what Pirsig is saying about ritual is to see what
the social level is. It is still with us in everyday life in a completely
ubiquitous way. Recall, for example, that Pirsig says "celebrity" is the
driving force of the social level. Recall how Cambell says it still lives in
our courts, armys and dining rooms. How Pirsig says its the Mass and in pay
day shopping. Its an Ocean, the one we all swim in. So yes. The social level
is more than ritual as we usually think of it, but with an expanded idea of
what ritual means here, not much more. Anyway, in response to my suggestion
that the idea of ritual and the social level need to be vastly expanded to
include most of what we are as human beings, Sam asked...
Sam:
I was more looking at the 'cops and soldiers' bit, but your further comments
are suggestive. Are all those latter elements ("Its what allows us to think
and talk, gives us our desires and conceptual categories, ideas of rights
and wrong") products of fertilisation from the intellectual level, or are
they intrinsic to the social?
DMB says:
The "metaphysics and pragmatism" post I sent earlier today, the one with the
beefy quotes, goes along way toward answering you, I hope. But the short
answer is that they are products of the social level. The very existence of
an elaborate and powerful perennial philosophy, for example, is strong
evidence that the social level has a wisdom and an intelligence that ought
not be misunderestimated. To think of the social level as a set of rituals
or any other thing so small does just that, I think. Most of the words in
the dictionary are products of the social level. How long did language
evolve before intellect ever came along? How long did rituals and daily life
evolve before philosophy came along? Who knows? But you can bet that
intellectual evolution has been evolving for only a tiny fraction of that
vast time period. All languages, civilizations, societies, myths, morals,
religions and rituals are products of the social level. Its huge and
ancient. It is everthing about us that is neither animal nor intellectual.
Its everything that makes us human. I think its enormity can not be
overstated. (Although I'm giving it a good shot, eh?) What I'm saying is
that social values and ritual are both with us all day long. Its not some
alien or archaic museum piece. 'Tis I and Thou. If you want to know what
social values are, look at us. Its our human world.
Sam:
Could you explain the way in which the separation of church and state does
not rule out *some* categories of intellectual endeavour (eg theocratic
arguments)? I guess you would say that such arguments were by definition
non-intellectual, but that seems to be begging the question.
DMB says:
The idea is that the State is prohibited from establishing an offical
religion AND from preventing the free exercise of religion. Perhaps you'd
say it amounts to the same thing. That religious freedom necessarily rules
out theocracy, even if people are allowed to believe in it and advocate it.
(Ironically, such activist would speak out under the protection of that very
same freedom they would dispense with.) In any case, begging the question or
not, theocracy is right us there with monarchy, serfdom and slavery;
precisely the kind of thing that the advocates of intellectual freedom would
like least of all. These are the kinds of things intellectually guided
societies are supposed to cure. Anyway, people are free to believe that God
belongs in politics. They certainly do here in the USA and they even effect
real policies. The president swears his oath on the bible, but a judge ruled
that the phrase "under god" in the pledge of alligence was illegal. Go
figure.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 Feb 16 2003 - 22:07:08 GMT