> -----Original Message-----
> From: yummy@netfront.net [SMTP:yummy@netfront.net]
> Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 11:14 PM
> To: DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org
> Subject: Re: BOUNCE moq_focus@venus.co.uk: Approval required:
>
> David
> > > Diana, Rick and all Focs:
> > >
> > > Sorry, Diana.
> > > I didn't intend to blame anyone in particular when I asked, "Where
> were the
> > > moderators this month?" I'm grateful that you're thinking of making a
> third
> > > forum. You're very generous and this is a really bad time to be
> blaming you
> > > for anything. In fact, I was very surprized to learn that there
> weren't any
> > > moderators this month. That little bit of news explains quite alot.
> I'd
> > > assumed all the normal rules still applied.
> > >
> > > But I think if everbody tried a little harder to stick to the point,
> we
> > > wouldn't even need moderation. In terms of blame, I'd say anyone who
> strayed
> > > from the text or went outside of the first three chapters is guilty,
> and
> > > that includes me. But let's say.. I make a motion that... its a
> standing
> > > rule no matter what else is going on in a moderated forum...
> irrelevant
> > > posts ALWAYS get bounced. (And sent back for editing with a nasty note
> about
> > > the evils of sloppy thinking?)
> > >
> > > And while I'm at it, may I encourage everyone on the unmoderated side
> to
> > > harshly scold all irrelevant posters? Please, accuse them of being
> rude and
> > > distracting children. Subject them to public humilition and
> intellectual
> > > scorn. Just kidding. Whew! Thank god for moderators!
> > >
> > > By the way, I'd offer to preform those moderating duties, but my
> access to a
> > > computer is limited and I don't know much about them. Plus, I'm a
> really
> > > mean bastard. Just kidding.
> > >
> > > Now moving on to what Rick said...
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Richard Budd [SMTP:rmb007Q1@hotmail.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 11:48 PM
> > > > To: moq_focus@moq.org
> > > > Subject: Re: MF First 3 Chapter Summary
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As for questioning Pirsig's identification of Indians as the
> originators
> > > > American values... I have a book (somewhere, I'm looking for it--)
> that
> > > > proposes this identification has been made before and is erroneous.
> It
> > > > points to the fact that it is now part of the circulum in many New
> York
> > > > State schools to teach that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by
> the
> > > > Iriquois despite the fact that there no evidence for this at all. I
> > > > believe
> > > > his argument claims that these "historical links" are politically
> correct,
> > > > relatively recent and revisonist. (I wish I could find that book).
> > > >
> > > [David Buchanan] Hmmm. I think the unlocated book and the view it
> > > represents can best be understood as part of that continued split in
> the
> > > American personality. As Pirsig puts it in the last paragraph of
> chapter
> > > 3...
> > >
> > > "Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet lost this one. They
> > > haven't yet won it either, he realized; the fight isn't over. It's
> still the
> > > central internal conflict in American today. It's a fault line, a
> > > discontinuity that runs through the center of the American cultural
> > > personality. It's dominated American history from the beginning and
> > > continues to be a source of both national strength and weakness
> today."
> > >
> > > Your lost book is very likely part of that continued struggle. The
> > > description of Indian influence as a recent invention by politically
> correct
> > > revisionist clearly shows that its just another round in the "culture
> war".
> > > Both sides in that war would like to lay claim to freedom and
> Democracy as
> > > its own. Both sides want Jefferson on their team.
> > >
> expletive deleted
> > >
> > > I think its a big mistake to take the "Indian origins" idea too
> > > literally or to take it too personally. I mean, a European looking,
> > > English-speaking cowboy can have Indian values in his heart. An Indian
> can
> > > go to Harvard to study Greek philosophy or otherwise internalize
> European
> > > values. A Jew can be a mystic. An Italian Catholic can be a freedom
> loving,
> > > noble savage in his heart. A brown-shirt is a brown shirt no matter
> what
> > > color his clothes are or where he from, if you know what I mean.
> > >
> > > I think Pirsig's insight about Indian values was that they're
> > > already in us. We've already internalized those values, its just a
> matter of
> > > degree. The split between Indian and European values runs through you
> as an
> > > individual and through Western civiliaztion as a whole. Its silly to
> start
> > > picking sides, you'll only alienate part of your own personality.
> > > (Remember in the teepee scene when he recognizes those Indian values
> > > in himself, as his other half, and how he felt at home for the first
> time
> > > because of that recognition? I think its true for all of us, even if
> you
> > > live in New Zealand or Hong Kong. Its not about geography, its about
> > > values.)
> > >
> > > And I don't think we can criticize Pirsig for being wrong just
> > > because freedom comes from other places too. He never asserted that
> the
> > > American Indians have exclusive rights or that they're are the
> exclusive
> > > source of freedom. We know he's still got alot left to say about
> Indians and
> > > so his explaination is still incomplete at the end of chapter 3. I
> want ot
> > > draw attention to my next point. PLEASE PONDER THIS....
> > >
> > > It's no accident that Pirsig goes several places in search of a
> > > non-SOM way of seeing things. He goes in several directions looking
> for the
> > > origins of a sense of "Quality" that is more primary than "whatever
> you
> > > like" subjectivity. And its no accident that he finds clues in the
> ancient
> > > Sanskrit (rht), in the ancient Greek Sophists (excellence), and in the
> East
> > > (dharma, karma and Zen). I think the idea is that he can go to Asia or
> to
> > > our ancient past to find non-SOM ways, but its easier to get it from
> > > American Indians because it is with us here and now. Its already in us
> and
> > > so we don't need to become Buddhists or learn extinct languages.
> > >
> > > And I think the Indian values are just one way that mystical values
> > > have been expressed. In fact every major religion has an esoteric core
> of
> > > mysticism. Its the one thing that all religions have in common. I
> think
> > > Pirsig goes East and back into our history because its more evident
> there
> > > than it is in the modern West.
> > >
> > > In fact, I've noticed that the posters who wish to downplay the
> > > "peyote illumination" express opinions about mysticism that
> demonstrate a
> > > lack of understanding. I forget who said the Indians' lack of
> ceremony, for
> > > example, was somehow not mystical. But I think that was Pirsig's point
> in
> > > talking about the lack of ceremony in that teepee. Ritual is the
> static form
> > > of religion. Ritual is the static behavior, the same actions and words
> are
> > > repeated over and over, like a Catholic Mass. The lack of ceremony is
> a hint
> > > about the Dynamic quality in the Indians' religion. And this same idea
> is
> > > connected to the contrast between Lila's fake hair and nails and
> authentic,
> > > in-the-bones attitude of the Indians. Ritual is brittle and hard like
> > > Victorian wrought iron, but mystical religion is about open space
> where the
> > > wind blows free and there is nothing to break the light of the sun. So
> when
> > > someone asserts that the Indians are not mystical because they lack
> > > ceremony, it only tells me that they don't really understand what
> mysticism
> > > is or how it is connected to DQ. It only tells me that they don't know
> what
> > > ritual is and how its connected to static Quality.
> > >
> > > And while I'm at it, the "de-hallucinogenic" experience is connected
> > > to mysticism like Baptism is connected to the Catholic Church. They
> are both
> > > standard forms of induction into the religion, but generally speaking
> the
> > > former is Dynamic while the later is static. That's why the Bishop
> gets
> > > nervous when a Saint comes to church. It reminds him that he's just a
> pale
> > > "imitation" of the genuine article. But I don't wish to beat up on the
> > > detractors too much. There is a tremendous cultural bias. And trying
> to
> > > understand mysticism in intellectual terms isn't rocket science. Its
> alot
> > > more difficult than that.
> > >
> > > DMB
> > >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
> > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
> http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/
>
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:20 BST