Diana, Marco, Roger, David B. and all Foci.
Diana
directed our attention to an address at "People's Daily". It opened
nicely but I didn't find the Native American bit (but a lot about the
Chinese worry over Taiwan and Tibet). However, I agree with what
you wrote. After the events in Greece (described in ZAMM, call it
birth of SOM, emergence of the intellectual level or both :-))
"freedom" has become synonymous to absence of social
constraints. This intellect-social struggle IS our era's chief aspect.
And I honestly believe it made itself felt in many places around the
then known world. Christ as you wrote: "......preached equality and
became the single most important influence on European culture
...". meant a break with the old (social) Mosaic Law.
And, no, the Christian Church hasn't been a model of
(intellectual/individual) freedom, but it formed in the Middle Age
which was an interim period before the return of intellect
(Renaissance) And Christ has always been a pita to the church -
Bishops fear the saint more than anything else.
But did intellect's awakening make itself felt all over the globe? As
I understand it, Pirsig sees the Far East culture as having solved
the Intellect(freedom) vs Society(rituals) riddle before it erupted in
the Mediterranean area ....and only now finds its reconciliation in
the MOQ!! But what about the American continent? As several well-
informed people now has stated the Indian "freedom" wasn't that
indigenous, most tribes lived in stable social surroundings. And
even the plains tribes social rituals were rigid. No, I don't think the
freedom ideal was of the philosophical kind - merely free to move
about. That's why Pirsig aborted that approach to his thesis - even
if it gave rise to the dynamic/static insight.
Marco wrote:
> First I thank you for all good comments on my last post - I'm just
> waiting for Bo's last word...:-) -
Thanks Marco, I am at it. Btw. I had expected you to suggest
"Time&Space" for an April topic - you and Andrew and Ryan had
some good inputs there, but we aren't short of topics exactly.
> I think this has been a GREAT MONTH. We are at 4th level, no? And we
> are fighting a typical 4th level war, for intellectual agreement. It's
> not a problem if the posts are 99.5% out of the topic. That's dynamic!
> I must say something about Roger's summary.
> #1: Pirsig introduces us to some of the limitations of
> #objectivity....
> I Agree.
"Objectivity, the limitations of."....hmm. My TOUGH category David
B did not agree with this point. He wrote:
> This one gives me the most trouble. I don't think
> its wrong so much as premature. I think we'll need to use "objective"
> as a category later in the book when we get to SOM and Positivism and
> all that. Pirsig clearly brings it up in his descriptions of
> Dusenberry, but I don't think its a major theme in the first three
> chapters.
but more on the grounds of it being premature regarding our
reading of LILA. Perhaps this what you all are speaking of, but can
we act as if we don't know the MOQ while reading the first
chapters? I have a problem here and want to stress that the first
chapters' P. is the pre-moq - even pre-quality - P. who the MOQ-
writing P. looks back on, and new members listening in on us will
believe that this is our present understanding. We have after all
been at it for almost three years.
Limitations of objectivity is to me a dangerous statement if it is
taken as an axiom of the MOQ. It's gives ground for the Beasley
and Hellier claim that the MOQ is "dangerous" and "crap". Of
course young P. of ZAMM did question objectivity - that was what
lead to his collapse and eventually the Q-revelation .....because he
saw existence from a SOM p.o.v, but the MOQ is a limitation of
both objectivity and subjectivity - of S/O as the primary division.
But the ability to distinguishing between what's objective and
what's subjective is a great static value and can't be limited. What
if we are embraced by revisionists who claim that the Holocaust
isn't true - just an agreed upon lie? (There's a case of a British
historian these days saying so) That is why I so much want to:
1) Avoid treating Q-intellect as "mind" of SOM, but rather...
2) See it as freedom from Social value, preferbably...
3) Regard it as subject-object logic itself.
Thus seen SO) will be a high value - better than social value which
is subjectivity seen from intellect (itself "objectivity of course!!) It
will be stripped of the M which is taken over by the Quality
Metaphysics ....which will be the stirrings of a new level. Don't
worry of this quick level building, very few know about it so it will
take long before it latches firmly.
Roger ended this section by saying:
> You know what? After writing this, I wonder if we need to stress
> objectivity more rather than less..... ????
I deeply agree with this, and congratulates Roger with the
summary effort. And hasten to ask everybody's forgiveness for
being so off topical.
Thanks to those still awake.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
