Platt, Speaking of mystical poetry - your words. Thank you.
Marsha On Nov 18, 2010, at 12:19 PM, Platt Holden wrote: > Hi All, > > The following passage from Lila also strikes me as being applicable to > language: > > "The irony is that there are times when the culture actually fosters trance > and hypnosis to further its purposes. The theater's a form of hypnosis. So > are movies and TV. When you enter a movie theater you know that all you're > going to see is shadows per second flashed on a screen to give an illusion > of moving people and objects. Yet despite this knowledge you laugh when the > shadows per second tell jokes and cry when the shadows show actors faking > death. You know they are an illusion yet you enter the illusion and become a > part of it and while the illusion is taking place you are not aware that it > is an illusion. This is hypnosis. It is trance. It's also a form of > temporary insanity" (Lila, 29) > > Is language like the theater? Consider that at root, language consists > of squiggles in the sand and puffs of wind. Despite this we get angry when > those squiggles say something we find outrageous and laugh when puffs of > wind combine to make a joke. We know language is not as real as sticks and > stones that break bones, but many believe it can be just as hurtful -- the > belief behind political correctness. How many similar illusions of words > being equivalent to things affect our political loyalties, not to mention > our reactions to life experiences. Are we all insane? > > Well, sometimes. But the kicker is that our thoughts (manipulations of > imaginary symbols) is what makes us human and without which we could not > survive. So we come to think of our illusions as real because we depend on > them for our continuing existence. From that standpoint, thoughts are as > real as the air we breathe. We can get along without movies, but not for > long without thinking. And so we confuse insults with stocks and stones -- > words with things, > > So then, what about morals? Are they as illusory as thoughts? Are they > imaginary only? Given that my wordless cat, UTOE, exhibits behavior that he > knows at all times what's best for him, and that unthinking babies know that > a full stomach is better than a hungry one, morals can be confidently placed > in the physical world of sensory perception. Thought not required. Even > atoms behave as if they make moral choices of some physical arrangements > over others. > > Which leads to my last question? If morals are as obvious as what is right > in front of our noses why did it take Pirsig two books and many articles and > interviews to point out something which many still don't get? Maybe the > answer is that by common agreements we've restricted the symbol "morals" to > apply exclusively to our social relationships which, like symbols > themselves, we depend on for survival. Given such dependence, we are > extremely reluctant to ascribe the symbol "morals" to anything other than > our primary concern -- maintaining our own being. To extend that symbol to > seemingly dispensable entities like atoms, aardvarks and altars is as > threatening as telling us to shut up. > > So we and Pirsig have a huge hurdle to overcome -- changing what a squiggle > in the sand and a puff of wind points to. How hard is that? Like really hard > because we think our symbols are as immutable as sand and wind. > > Regards, > > Platt ___ 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
