Hi Rocky,
RockyHayes@aol.com wrote :
>
> Denis,
>
> Your response to John Beasley's essay may or may not offend him, but it
> certainly does offend me. Your presumptuous tone and judgmental critique do
> not address the central issue of John's point in any meaningful way.
Well, excuse me, but when my, and I hope everyone else's on this forum,
point of interest is declared "a poisoned legacy" and "a disaster", I
hope I have a right to get up and try to defend it, don't I ? I tried to
show what the MOQ could be good for, what hopes it could bring and needs
it could fill. Perhaps I missed some finer point of the issue he brought
in, but his absolute condemnation of the MOQ *was* hard to miss !
>
> His point - which you did not catch (I guess because the use of emotional
> tones was too offensive to you) - is that the MOQ presents a sobering problem
> of describing a better way of describing reality with no practical way of
> actualizing that idea for a civilization.
>
The central point of John Beasley was, as I understood it, to say that
the answer to our problems wouldn't be found by intellectual means, be
they SOM or MOQ-influenced, and that discussing them on any rational
mode was to fall in the same age-old trap of the intellectual, who high
in his sphere discuss things without having ever experienced them. I
agree up to a point : discussing Transcendence *is* useless : nothing
meaningful, or even useful, can be said about Quality, the mystery of
being, the ineffable nature of the world. It must stay undefined (UG
Krishnamurti has an interesting point of view on those matters, I advise
to search the Web for his writings).
But still, where would we be had we heeded this warning at all time and
in all circumstances ? Still in the caves, is my guess.
The "out-of-touch" intellectual is a modern clich engineered by SOM,
that Pirsig tried to replace with a dynamic individual looking for
answers in a moral frame rather than in a valueless, cold and cynical
world. Is this so bad ? John says (or seems to, at least) "yes".
"... a ruthless, doctrinaire avoidance of degeneracy is a degeneracy of
another sort. That's the degeneracy fanatics are made of. Purity,
identified, ceases to be purity." - That's a warning I wanted to remind
John of, sorry if that sounds presumptuous.
The thing that made me so depressed was that "don't try, it's useless"
message that underlies John's post. I think it goes back to this
modern-day nihilism I'm so fed up with. It is OUR job to make things
better, not we on the forum, but everyone's. And then somebody comes and
says it's all trash anyway, why don't we all go home and resign !...
Had every visionary in the history of man kept his own privileged
contact with Quality to himself, how would we have survived ? There is
no perfect answer, but any improvement, any better answer, must be used
until it finally shows its limits. The MOQ is far from that point. It
hasn't yet even been developped, and we should go back ?! Easy to say
there is "no practical way of actualizing that idea for a civilization"
when you haven't at least tried.
And also, I don't think you can engineer a social change the way you'd
change and defective part of a bike. The main goal of Pirsig was to give
*individuals* a better way of relating to the world, in fact a better
way of *looking* at it. If this way becomes prevalent, the social
changes will come of themselves, without need for "extroverted
intellectuals" or anyone else to enforce the changes. They come first in
ourselves. It's been this way for ages, social revolutions comes from a
change in the sentiments that support a social model. I think I've seen
many signs of such a change lately, and I believe that the MOQ can
provide the necessary "static latch" the hippies lacked. That's why I'd
like to see people give it a chance before deeming it useless.
> You seem to believe that a bunch of extroverted intellectuals, (including
> yourself?), can manage that gap - but the point John is making is that
> apparently, the only souls empowered with the privilege of access to the
> "materials" necessary to build that bridge are terribly introverted, and
> socially challenged. The challenge, I might add, has a locus of control well
> beyond the individual - since social norms and interactions are largely a
> function of the gross mean within a culture.
>
Your first point is answered above, and I'm not sure John will follow
you on the next one, so I won't assume you speak his mind. If he is as
offended by my words as I was by his, he'll soon let me know.
> Is introversion a prerequisite to insight? Probably not. But a life spent in
> contemplation surely has a distinct advantage over a person wholly immersed
> in the physical 'real' world, and out of touch with their own emotional self.
>
> The central question becomes: How can a few introverts who experience a
> common epiphany and then translate it for the masses in a manner helpful for
> the entire human race? It is a question that you obviously think is
> meaningless. It is a question I'm certain Pirsig struggled with. I hope MOQ
> focus participants do not side with your argument.
>
It's meaningless because I prefer to follow an old piece of wisdom :
"Don't speak about what you do not know". Pirsig might have had an
mystic experience, but I haven't. As to translate it for the masses (and
BTW, I hate this word), I think Pirsig did it in a time-honored way,
which is probably the best way to relate such an ineffable experience :
he made a story about it, one that would evoke wonder in the readers,
and focalize vague feelings of "wrongness" into a coherent system. A new
myth. What else could it be ?
> By the way, I'd like to communicate to all participants here the following
> observation: There is a general tendency in the MOQ dialogue to wholly give
> into the impulse of intellectualizing on matters. The intellectual jousting
> that occurs here all-too-often is ultimately good only for the ego. And, even
> that use is short-lived. I believe it would be beneficial to the dialogue to
> entertain the nonintellectual aspects of existance also. Remember Pirsig -
> "But, there are stronger human forces than logic, there always have been."
> Occasionally, why not put down the scalpel and pick up something like a
> violin? Or a dream? It's called 'balance' folks.
>
I've seen some good posts (like Cory's last, a must) which I wouldn't
deem without artistic value. We are all engaged in rhetoric, here. It's
supposed to be an art (after Pirsig, not Aristotle). Intellectualization
(to which SOM gave a bad name) can be done in good ways, so shouldn't it
be deemed an artistic activity ? Or is art so divorced from techniques ?
Got to go now
Denis
PS : Rocky, I *didn't* miss the fact you were upset with me, but if you
can bear it, read the previous post again : was I so wrong ? We're not
here for a popularity contest, but for some creative thinking. I'm sorry
if my beliefs or the vehemence with which I defend them offends anyone,
but I won't back down for this. If I think John is going the wrong way,
why would I shut up ? Isn't this a "forum" ? A place to debate ?
------- 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