Bodvar and fellow scopers:
It seems Bo and I agree much more than not. After re-reading his 10/14
post again I've come to the conclusion that the only significant
difference between us is Bo's SOLAQI. And I have a lot of sympathy for
the idea, inspite of my objections.
I can't count myself as a member of either the Bodo or Chicago schools
of the MOQ, but if it were like an ideological spectrum I'd probably end
up in Bergen.
The concision of this is astonishing... BO SAYS>>> "As I see it
mind-intellect is much like SOM's mind: the thinking realm where reality
is either reproduced (materialists) or created (idealists) ...or both
(Horse)?" I'd like to hear more about Horse's view in this context, but
the quote neatly identifies the problem with SOM's "mind". Epistemology
within a SOM context is a nightmare, a maze full of dead ends and
absurdities. But we part company when you say SOLAQI frees us from SOM
residue.
BO WRITES>>> "If MOQ is to stand on its own it must free itself from
such SOM residue, and I believe that intellect as subject/object-logic
fulfills this. Thus seen the one value that characterizes it is the
ability of looking OBJECTIVELY upon existence. What's more it show its
social origins. Social values become the subjectivity that Q-intellect
hates but never really manages to free itself from ...another important
MOQ tenant."
If I may return to the analogy Bo used in an earlier post, there is no
lever or objective pivot point with which to "move" SOM out of the way.
Instead Bo puts the MOQ on top of SOM, but I can only agree with the
principle and not the method. I think that intellect is much more than
OBJECTIVITY and social values are so much more than SUBJECTIVITY.
Strickly speaking, subjectivity and objectivity are features of the
intellectual level, but there is a corresponding duality at the social
level too. The social level has its own kind of subject/object split and
it has served as the basis of SOM. At the social level the distinction
between self and the other is very much a part of the game. Social
relations and heirarchies hardly make sense without distinctions like
he, me, she, we and them. This same split even seems to occur at the
biological level; just about any warm-blooded creature could be said to
make a distinction between its own temperature and the thermal state of
their enviroment.
But I like the principle because it puts SOM within the MOQ. It doesn't
try to pry the SOM out of our view like one would use a crowbar to
remove a section of the sidewalk. I think this is Pirsig's approch too.
He doesn't throw it away so much as he surrounds and infiltrates SOM.
The MOQ breaks out of and surpasses SOM, but without destroying it
entirely. Pirsig just puts it in its place, so to speak. He surrounds
SOM's scientific objectivity with Eastern philosophy, Mysticism,
insanity and even certain kinds of subjectivity, as in the homage to
dhyana. He infiltrates SOM by discerning the social values as its own
level of reality and by slipping it between the once disconnected "mind
and body". This infiltration is accomplished by re-thinking anthropology
in a non-objective way, by reasserting the value of mythology via "The
Masks of God" and even Bohr's Complimentarity where he says "we are
suspended in language". Pirsig fills the gap between "mind" and "body".
He fills it with a level of static quality that SOM can barely see,
thereby recovering the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater. You
know, science was born during the inquisition and genocidal "religious"
wars.
A WEATHERED MYTHOS LONG SINCE PAST?
SOM suffers from its blindness to social level values, it suffers from
the insistence that scientific knowledge not only trumps but also
replaces all previous forms of understanding. Mythology is not just in
the past. Its not just in the pages of dusty old books. Mythology is a
huge warehouse full of value-able information, real static quality, and
it is within us all whether we realize it or not. It has a power over us
whether we realize it or not. Its no accident that Freud was able to
describe psychological complexes in terms of ancient Greek gods and
heros. Its not an accident that Shelly's Frankenstien is subtitled "The
modern Prometheus" or that Plato's division of the psyche (Passion,
reason and temperance) should appear on Star Trek as McCoy, Spock and
Kirk. Hell, you can see mythological figures in comic books, Saturday
morning cartoons and a zillion other places too. ET was Christ figure,
for God's sake. Even the realtively superficial Spielberg can't help it.
Of course the trick is to find some coherence and meaning among the
rubble. Our mythology lies in ruins because of SOM. Because of SOM, our
consciousness has been split, torn asunder, ripped up by its roots,
taken from the soil and placed in some luke-warm, sterile, hydroponic
contraption. The isolated ego-consciousness needs to be replanted back
into its terra firma, the social level.
I like Roger's idea that consciousness lies within all the levels of
static patterns. Or rather they are manifestations of awareness itself.
And I think he's right to point out Pirsig's apparently deliberate
avoidance of the word "consciousness". It does seem to be tied up with
Quality itself. I'd even say that its one of the MOQ's "open secrets".
We get phrases like "primary empirical reality", "pre-intellectual
awareness" and "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" which all indicate
some kind of perception and some ability to discern reality. The word
"quality" itself implies consciousness, doesn't it? It my impression
that the MOQ describes a universe that is totally aware, but on
different levels. And this is kind of consciousness is not the same as
ego-consciousness, and it doesn't even depend on sense organs, that's
just biology's version of it, just static quality's reprise of the
universal song. I mean, aren't static patterns of quality the
manifestations of a larger awareness? Isn't the evolutionary migration
toward DQ a building process which expands the fruits of DQ's action? In
speculating on the 5th level I can't imagine anything more likely than
sweeter fruit.
Bo is right to point out that the Victorians and NAZIs stand out because
they defend social values no one wants to associate or identify with.
They serve us well as BAD examples and as relections of our darker
selves. And social level values will never measure up if we judge them
by intellectual standards. Sure we can use the intellect to explore the
meaning of our mythology, but if we analyze a myth for its' "scientific"
virtues then we've only abused science and misunderstood the nature of
myth. Myths aren't supposed to be intellectual anymore than rocks are
supposed to breed. Its a case of confuse the levels, eh? Social level
values are not intellectual level values, that is axiomatic, but it
doesn't mean social values, like the ones expressed in myth legends and
religions, it doesn't mean they're no good. Its just a different kind of
static quality. We don't want to abandon it anymore than we want to
leave our bodies behind.
CONCLUSION? Bo and I are going to have different ideas about the fifth
level, and SOLAQI is the difference. As i see it, the 5th level will
emerge out of an intellectual level only after the social level is more
fully integrated and SOM's hegemony has come to an end. In other words,
the madness of scientific objectivity will inhibit evolution to higher
levels unless and until the true value of our cultural and psychological
legacy is fully appreciated and recognized for what it is. Put yet
another way, all the levels have to be properly mediated and integrated
before the party really starts rockin'.
That's another thing about the 5th level; the beer is free. Just
kidding. DMB
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST