Hi, John,
Gosh, you *are* depressing, you know ?... Not to offend you, but your
post was so ladden with emotional appeal that I nearly turned my
computer off after reading your post ! :)
> And so it continues as we endlessly debate the ideas in Lila - Pirsig's poisoned legacy.
> Where is he, the man who ran this metaphysics together? Still suffering the hangover? We
> treat him as a celebrity, often with contemptible effusiveness. We joust with ideas, his and
> each others, but to what effect?
So what ? Pirsig is a nerd ? We know that. So was Einstein, and so are
most people with an above average intelligence : they shun the social in
favor of the intellectual. Your "soul-deep" isolation seems to me like a
bad case of social inadequacy, which Pirsig sure contracted in his
adolescence. Mystics often shun other's people compagny, and Voltaire
once said, and I wholly agree, that "Earth is full of people you
wouldn't want to speak to". And before calling me anything, you'd better
do a little soul-searching to see if this isn't also your case, John. Do
you, searching for a way to break your isolation, want to commune with
just about everyone ? With every bag-lady and neo-nazi you'll find on
your way ? Or even just plain normal idiots ?
We're all both judges and actors, and getting past ours and others'
people veils is a long process. This doesn't wholly spring from modern
life, you know ; In fact, it must have started with the first large
concentrations of humans. You can have a personnal relationship with
every members of a community of 30 people, but not with one of 30,000 !
You have to become selective, even elitist.
> Quality is a chimera. Knowing that "Good is a noun" has not
> brought us together, but confirms our tragic isolation. What I seek is something that
> transcends that isolation. Quality is on the edge of it, or I would not be writing this essay,
> but the metaphysics of quality must be seen for what it is, a disaster.
Well, I think people on the MOQ.org site tend to see the MOQ as
something more important and world-spanning than it really is : a good
intellectual trick. It is nothing else, and certainly not the evil
"isolation-generator" you believe it is. Saying it is "the Fifth Level"
seems to me as ludicrous as saying it is a "poisoned legacy".
Moderation, people.
Of course 'Lila' isn't a "How to get Enlightenment in 10 lessons" or
even "How to solve a moral dilemma". That'd be too easy, wouldn't it ?
In order to see its worth, the MOQ must be seen with a critical eye,
sorting the wheat from the shaff. Pirsig is brilliant, but made
mistakes. His "rational morality" is ludicrous, for a start. That
doesn't make the MOQ all bad. I think you see the MOQ as a "disaster"
because you expected too much from it. To break from our intellectual
prison isn't as easy as that. Just reading a book won't do it.
The MOQ, if it is recognized, will, I hope, become an eye-opener about
what the intellect is, and perhaps will give us good leads about the
social level. Not for management, as David B. would like us to believe,
when MOQ-intellectuals will lead the world with MOQ-generated answers
for just about any moral dilemma (and since morals are everything in the
MOQ, conveniently becoming in the process the sole possessors of
authority).
The MOQ, like SOM, is also a mythology. It might give us much if we
learn to use it properly. Mostly, if we follow its mystic commandments
of "looking for betterness", both in ourselves and the outside world. It
is our journey, our goal, its main message, I believe. Ultimately, all
the rest can be discared, but not before we learn to accept and master
it.
Joseph Campbell said (in "The Masks of God : Occidental Mythology") that
the functions of a mythology are fourfold :
1 - "...eliciting and supporting a sense of awe before the mystery of
being. [...] Only the accident of experience and the sign symbols of a
living myth can elicit and support it ; but such signs cannot be
invented. They are found."
- I say, MOQ-compliant. Quality (the mystery of being), DQ (the accident
of experience) and SQ (the sign symbols of the living myth) match those
definitions perfectly.
2 - "The second function of mythology is to render a cosmology, an image
of the universe that will support and be supported by this sense of awe
before the mystery of a presence and the presence of a mystery. The
cosmology has to correspond, however, to the actual experience,
knowledge, and mentality of the culture folk involved."
- Again MOQ-compliant; actually, this is probably the best point for the
MOQ against established religions : it is mystically oriented, but
without being adverse to science, the present-day myth and necessity.
3 - "A third function of mythology is to support the current social
order, to integrate the individual organically with his group[...] The
social function of a mythology and of the rites by which it is rendered
is to establish in every member of the group concerned a "system of
sentiments" that can be depended upon to link him spontaneously to its
ends. [...] Today we know, for the most part, that our laws are not from
God or from the universe, but from ourselves ; are conventional, not
absolute ; and that in breaking them we offend not God but man. [...]
And if the principle of love cannot be wakened actually within each - as
it was mythologically in God - to master the principle of hate, the
Waste Land alone can be our destiny and the master of the world its
fiends."
- In there is the most important lesson. Much of what the MOQ teaches
can be used to achieve those ends : that laws are not "subjective", but
determined from a empirical sense of their Quality, their moral worth.
That the good of society is of a higher moral order then man biological
needs. That the intellectual freedom is more important than the social
order continuity. That those moral orders are from Dharma, from Quality,
from the moral order of the world, which is evolutive. That only by a
personnal effort toward betterness can this moral order be maintained,
and evolve.
SOM is most impotent in regard to this third function, because as
Campbell points out in SOM-fashion, it is man we offend when breaking
those laws (ie. they are "subjective", therefore unimportant). If this
is replaced with "offending Dharma", Quality itself, then we might be a
triffle less flippant about it. I don't expect everyone to fall on their
knees quaking with fear, but to put a little more respect behind those
laws, a little mystic push, so to speak. Of course, to do that you have
to believe in this order, John, and find ways to improve and develop it.
If those are good, they might eventually become the "rites" of the new
mythology of an evolving moral universe, where the individual is the
motor of this evolution.
4 - "The fourth function of mythology is to initiate the individual into
the order of realities of its own psyche, guiding him toward his own
spiritual enrichment and realization. Formerly - but in archaic culture
still - the way was to subordinate all individual judgment, will and
capacities absolutely to the social order : the principle of ego [...]
was to be suppressed and, if possible, even erased. [...] One may take
it as a point of evidence of the advanced position of Europe in the way
of respect for the individual that, whereas Hitler's massacre of some
5,000 000 Jews evokes (and properly so) horror from all sides, Stalin's
of 25,000 000 Russians passes almost without notice, and the present
Chinese orgy is entirely overlooked. Both by the Orient and by the
Occident such inhumanity is recognized as normal for the great East,
while better things are expected of ourselves - and rightly so. [...]
And this humanistic individualism has released powers of creativity that
have brought about in a mere two centuries changes in the weal and woe
of man such as no two milleniums before had ever worked. [...] The
adventure of the Grail - the quest within for those creative values by
which the Waste Land is redeemed - has become today for each the
unavoidable task."
- I don't think I have here to comment on how this is so close to the
MOQ as to leave one with an eerie feeling, do I ?
The MOQ can, I hope, fulfill all these needs whereas SOM is lacking in
many of them. As for the isolation of the intellect, I can't see any
escape from it in humans. It is our burden to know that, as grand or as
small as we deem ourselves to be, we are made separate by SQ until death
or Enlightenment joins us again with the rest of reality. The quest for
Enlightenment, for the Highest Grail, is the most holy, it is the "Code
of Art", but no textbook is forthcoming for that. The MOQ tells us about
its existence, and ZMM about the story of a man who went there and came
back. He came back not with Enlightenment in his pocket, but with a bag
full of tricks to make some improvements in our lives. And that's all.
If that's not enough for you, John, great, find me a textbook for
Enlightenment. But in the meantime, don't crash the party for all of us.
I'm perfectly OK with what I've found. For me, Enlightenment can wait.
It'll find me in its own good time.
I think the MOQ, if it escapes from the clutches of the dogmatists and
the "paradise now!" people, might lead us to a better society, where the
individual is deemed a responsible and dynamic part of society, even if
not everybody follows the road of the "higher good". Where the social
groups have for sole purpose the development and welfare of their human
components, even if they still occasionally war with one another. Where
the human rights are "really" the highest authority, even if they're not
always followed. This isn't paradise, but just a few improvements I'd
like to see accomplished in my lifetime.
Well, I'll settle for some promising start... ;)
So stop whinning and get to work !
Be good
Denis
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST