Jon, Thanks for that link to the summer of love, I got to meet Theodore Roszak who's Where the Wasteland Ends, was a big influence in my life.
I stumbled across a link I thought you'd find interesting and since one good turn deserves another... from http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html "The thinness of the new atheism is evident in its approach to our civilization, which until recently was religious to its core. To regret religion is, in fact, to regret our civilization and its monuments, its achievements, and its legacy. And in my own view, the absence of religious faith, provided that such faith is not murderously intolerant, can have a deleterious effect upon human character and personality. If you empty the world of purpose, make it one of brute fact alone, you empty it (for many people, at any rate) of reasons for gratitude, and a sense of gratitude is necessary for both happiness and decency. For what can soon, and all too easily, replace gratitude is a sense of entitlement. Without gratitude, it is hard to appreciate, or be satisfied with, what you have: and life will become an existential shopping spree that no product satisfies. The obligation of gratitude is sufficient to drive the self-obsessed mad." On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 10:05 PM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > dmb and all, > > I accidentally sent the last message before I was finished. I was saying > that these principles are ways the world is, and ways of viewing the world > and that no one view really can fully incorporate both views, as Pirsig > claims. Pirsig favors dynamic quality, just as the I Ching with its two > fundamental principles, favors yin, or the change principles. > > Both these systems, moq and the I Ching, are essentially the same thing. > Both favor the changing, dynamic, becoming principle. > They both incorporate a weaker version of the other principle, but not as > it > would exist in a truly static, or yang system of thought. It's called after > all the book of changes, not the book of the changeless, or static, for a > reason. > > This division is the same basic division you see in all eastern thought, > and > neoplatonism. It is the Apollo and Dionysius split of the Greeks. We see > the > Greek religious ground motive of the flowing river of dynamic change > and becoming of the cthonic, earth lydeities pitted against the Olympian > deities of form-justice, beauty, etc., the changless element of the sky. > > In my older writings I used to refer to this same split as solar vs lunar > mythic traditions. Moq is a lunar mythic-religious and philosophical > system. > It tries to incorporate the solar qualities, but does it only in a reduced > form. That is the lunar or (dq) way of seeing the world SEES the solar (sq) > reality differently than the solar (sq) sees itself and the lunar (dq). > That > is both views see and treat their two primary components differently. > That's > where the deceit its. Moq favors the dynamic reality over the static. And > this sabotages its rational element even though it is often unseen. > > > > .On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > > dmb, an all, > > > > Someone teach me how to do the quoting thing in a reply. What's the > secret. > > > > Let's back up and try to define our terms a bit more, and look more > > carefully at world views, and the ideas behind them, so we can trace > their > > influence. The Enlightenment is actually a very sticky-wicket to define. > > And there were different phases in different countries. In the early > stages > > the Enlightenment was based on Christian theism, and later became quite > > atheistic, of course, in France and elswhere. > > > > But there were at least 2 Enlightenments,a French-German and a > > Anglo-American. Furthermore, the Enlightenment was not as influential in > > America's formative years. So I'd like to see you present some evidence > dmb, > > for your and Pirsig's claim (and Campbell would agree with you) that > human > > rights, democracy, were grounded in Enlightenment thought. > > > > One source I would reccomend to you is Alan Bloom's "The Closing of the > > American Mind". There's a chapter in there called "Two Revolutions > > Two States of Nature", describing the philosophical and political > > differences between the French and American revolutions. > > > > The American revolution was more strongly influenced by the thought of > > Montesquei, and Burke and the Bible, specifically, the book of > Deutoronomy. > > The American revolution and political institutions were strongly > influenced > > by both the first and second great awakenings and their grounding in and > > return to the ideas of the Protestant Reformation. > > > > Even if you claim the Deism of the Enlightenment as an influence on these > > rights, and freedom this is still a far cry away from what Pirsig is > > proposing with his Moq, which you, yourself claim as anti-theistic > > > > Even for the Deist like Jefferson the unalienable rights of man, his > > freedom, was endowed by a Creator, not by static or dynamic patterns of > > quality. > > > > Also, Pirsig talks out of both sides of his mouth. Or more to the point > has > > such a lose philosophy that he can stretch and distort it to meet his > fancy > > or fantasy, or whim as the case may be. That's why I think it is flaky > and > > deceitful. > > > > Even from and eastern perspective there is a saying Lao Tzu walks in the > > woods, Confucius in society. Moq is closer to Taoism, not the moral > > structure of Confucius. > > > > Pirsig, and his philosophy, like all philosophies that deny the > > Creator-creation distinction, try to have their cake, and not eat it too! > > This is the fate of all philosophies that focus only on the creation. > They > > all have two oscillating principles that forever switch back and forth. > > > > I'd like to also point out and develop in another post how moq and all > > other such systems that are based on two fundamental principles, really > > favor only one of these principles-not both! This is where and how they > > deceive. For these principles say static and dynamic quality are not just > > ways the world is believed to be, they are ways of VIEWING the world. And > > there is no one view that truly incorportates both views. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:00 PM, david buchanan <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> > >> Jon said: > >> The issues of political freedom, the respect for human rights, including > >> women's rights and civil rights did not emerge from such a world view as > the > >> moq, and it is indeed alien to the recognition of such rights. > >> > >> dmb says: > >> > >> Well, the ideas about human rights and political freedom emerged from > >> Enlightenment philosophers. The MOQ supports these ideas quite > vigorously > >> and explicitly, although for different reasons than the original > thinkers > >> might have. "Freedom of speech; freedom of assembly, of travel; trial by > >> jury; habeas corpus; government by consent - these 'human rights' are > all > >> intellectual-vs-society issues. According to the Metaphysics of Quality > >> these 'human rights' have not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, > >> metaphysical basis. They are essential to the evolution of a higher > level of > >> life from a lower level of life. They are for real." (Lila 307) > >> Jon said: > >> I'm sure many on the list are familiar with the work of Joseph Campbell. > >> his work is very supportive of Eastern thought, and Prisig's views. > Surely > >> you will admit he is knowledgeable of the cultures and myths of the > world, > >> and is an expert in comparative mythology. > >> > >> > >> dmb says: > >> > >> Yea, I'm a big fan. In Lila, Pirsig recommend's Joseph Campbell's "Masks > >> of God". He says if you really want to understand what the social level > is > >> all about, that's the book to read. Notice how Campbell echoes what > Pirsig > >> just said about rights and freedom where he says, "they are the truly > great > >> "new thing" that we do indeed represent to the world and that > constitutes > >> our Occidental revelation of a properly human spiritual ideal, true to > the > >> highest potentiality of our species". > >> > >> > >> > >> Jon said: > >> > >> You have these freedoms because you were seen as created in the very > image > >> of God. And you were endowed by your Creator with these rights because > your > >> life was seen as sacred. Not a static, certainly not a dynamic pattern, > but > >> a child of the living God. That is the source of freedom, personal and > >> political. > >> > >> > >> > >> dmb says: > >> > >> > >> Definitely disagree with you there. As you just saw, Pirsig thinks that > >> our rights and freedoms have a rational, evolutionary basis. The MOQ is > not > >> theistic generally and in some ways it is even anti-theistic. Based on > your > >> apparent commitments to such beliefs, I suspect you won't find much > comfort > >> in the MOQ. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> _________________________________________________________________ > >> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars > with > >> Hotmail. > >> > >> > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 > >> Moq_Discuss mailing list > >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > >> Archives: > >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > >> http://moq.org/md/archives.html > >> > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
