Hello everyone On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 7:59 PM, X Acto <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Dan comments: > > Here he seems to be equating Socrates idea of soul with Dynamic > Quality, though he doesn't use those words in ZMM as he does in LILA. > > In LILA, it seems clear he equates the idea of God with social > patterns of value, thus his Copleston annotations are better > understood, I think: > > "To the early Calvinists and to ourselves too this debasement of the > word seems outrageous, but it becomes understandable when one sees > that within the Victorian pattern of values society was God. As Edith > Wharton said, Victorians feared scandal worse than they feared > disease. They had lost their faith in the religious values of their > ancestors and put their faith in society instead. It was only by > wearing the corset of society that on oneself from lapsing back into a > condition of evil. Formalism and prudery were as to suppress evil by > denying it a place in one's "higher" thoughts, and for the Victorian, > higher spiritually meant higher socially. There was no distinction > between the two. "God is a gentleman through and through, and in all > probability, Episcopal too." To be a gentleman was as close as you > would ever get, while on earth, to God." [LILA] > > "Good old technology. All this twentieth century sanity wasn't as > interesting as the old days of his incarceration but he was getting a > lot more accomplished, at a social level at least. Other cultures may > talk to idols and animal spirits and fissures in rocks and ghosts of > the past but it wasn't for him. He had other things to do." [LILA} > > Dan comments: > > In the first quote, he links higher spirituality with higher social > standing. To be a gentleman is to believe in God. In the second quote, > he declares while other cultures may believe in spirits and souls, it > isn't to be included in the MOQ. > > If you have a different take, I would love to hear it. > > Ron: > My take on the second quote is that was coming from the context of the > character > of > Phaedrus, the guy who is percieved as bookish and square, the guy that has a > difficult > time talking to Indians and Lila, the awkward intellectual. All those examples > of spirits > and ghosts had meaning for him at the peyote ritual.
Dan: Yes, I can see that. But, Phaedrus is also the fellow who thought up the MOQ. >Ron: > The first quote, does seem to be stating that to the Victorians, higher > spirituality was > higher social standing and thus to the Victorians spirituality was a social > level value. > > But if one reads Socrates and Aristotle, they developed a few excellent > intellectual > explanations. It is my contention that Pirsigs explanation is consistent with > them. Dan: I've never read much of Socrates or Aristotle. Perhaps you might offer a couple quotes? >Ron: > I hesitate to extend those quotes as criteria of inclusion or exclusion of the > idea of spirit or self > > into an MoQ. Dan: Fair enough. There are no other quotes I can find, though. So I am unsure where your argument is going here. In reading the Copleston annotations, it seems clear to me that RMP never intended to include spirit and soul in the MOQ. I simply don't see anywhere that he equates selfhood with the concept of spirit and soul, other than to refute it. Could you point out where that happens? It is entirely possible I missed it. Thank you, Dan 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
