Iíve been a lurker on the MD side for approximately a
month and here on MF for a week. I am glad to have
found this site when I did, when the close reading of
Lila was just beginning. This is my first post. I
feel I need to make it because of a theme that I see
running through Chapters 1-3. I apologize if my observation is still somewhat inchoate.
It all started with the PROGRAM slip that Phaedrus
wrote at the end of chapter 2 saying, ě Hang up
everything until Lila goneî. I think what this
represents is central to the beginning of the book.
>From the MF posts I have read this month, I think we
can agree that the slips and their organization
represent an entirely intellectual exercise. The slips
may represent thoughts that have come to Phaedrus
Dynamically, during the Peyote ceremony or, as he says
on page 25 of my edition, on the ěspur of the momentî
while he is concentrating on other tasks. The
organization and reorganization of the slips and the PROGRAM slips look to me like the imposition of static
patterns onto the individual ideas or thoughts
represented on the other slips. The patterning process
is a second level intellectualization. It is thinking
about the thoughts. Phaedrus says that the PROGRAM
slips are ěinstructions for what to do with the rest of
the slipsî. Now, we have a PROGRAM slip, an instruction
for what to do with the other slips, for what to do while Lila is on board; ěHang up everything until Lila
goneî! The intellectual pattern making process, the
organization of the slips of recorded experience, has
been derailed, stopped.
Is this because of the immediacy of the
biologic and social concerns that Phaedrus is faced
with? Has the need to resolve these issues trumped the
intellectual? I donít think so. I think this is an
instruction on perception, on how to perceive to
attain Dynamic insight.
Look at what happened to Dusenberryís objective
anthros. They didnít get very far. They approached the
anthropology of the Indians with objectivity and
intellect at the forefront. For Dusenberry,
experiencing the Indians was paramount and
intellectualizing was secondary. To experience the
Dynamic, the intellectual patterns must be Hung Up.
Does this suggest a problem with the nature
of ëobjective observationí to anyone else?
Can objective observation occur without the subjectivity
of the observer creeping in? Or, should
the question be so what if the nature of the subjective
observer participates in the observation? Arenít we
heading down a path where the differentiation between
observer and observed will be eliminated anyway? I
know that my language is loaded with SOM terminology
and concepts. I think it is allowed because we are only in
the beginning of the book. We havenít yet reached the point
where these differentiations are rendered obsolete by the MOQ.
Again, at the Peyote ceremony, the Peyote
allows Phaedrus to participate and experience. Otherwise,
he says, ěhe would have sat
there ëobservingí all this ëobjectivelyíî (p. 37) It
has removed his filtering pattern-making intellectual
facility. To achieve the type of Dynamic experience he had
at the ceremony, the experience had to be primary
and any interpretation / pattern making put on hold ń
Hung up. Does this mean that we should experience the
book Lila by hanging up our static intellectual
patterns, our program slips?
But, we are saved the paradox of intellectually
discussing MOQ through the example of the Peyote ceremony.
Phaedrus had the impression of being two
people; the ëwildí person who finally felt at home and
the ëgoodí ëanalyticí person who was able to spin the
web of connections and insights. What is important is
that, at this moment, the ëanalyticí intellectual
person was unencumbered by the pre-existing static
patterns of thought.
To experience the Dynamic, the static
intellectual patterns must be Hung up.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:19 BST