There is a division I've noticed, in the moq, that I'm not sure about, and it has to do with the mythos and logos. This comes about because it's a presupposition to so many arguments I've heard "over there" that I thought I'd ask if it was more widely held, "over here".
Tuukka brought it to mind most recently with the idea that the 4th level ought to be called "rational" rather than "intellectual", because intellectual is a name for a certain kind of thinking, a very classically oriented and logical style, which is powerful and dominant in the world (the victorians kicked indian ass in the end, let's face it) but at the same time, by its own analysis, is insane. The Rational level connotes more than mere intellect (objectivism) and thus can encompass both sides of the bifurcated human brain, the artist AND the scientist. Myth is rational. Art is rational. Art is not intellectual. Is there anybody who thinks Art is not of the highest level of human thinking? It certainly can't be deemed intellectual in any way, so where does it fit in the MoQ anyway? Pirsig himself seems to leave the question floating in the air, but a metaphysics needs to get things pinned down accurately. Rational is a good term for the 4th levle, since all myth-making is a form of seeking a rationale. We tell stories about reality to our children, in the same way we were fed stories by our parents. And whether that story was about Thor or Pressure gradient change, we all need an explanation for the reality of our thunder-experience. It's only rational. The fact that our "superior" culture has come up with the best possible and most satisfying explanations so far, of all the myths I've encountered, is no reason to think that our ghosts have transcended ghost-hood and can now be stated as "absolute fact". If the past is any indication, we're always wrong. Error is the metaphysical fundament of realiy as we know it. Why do we need explanations, and horses, dogs and fish don't seem to? Because humans are rational, and animals are not. Not in the way I define the term (and Tuukka) Rational stands for that which seeks meaning. Myths are created only by humans seeking meaning and passing it on. Intellect, on the other hand, asks questions. It doesn't come up with myths, it questions myth. But the idea that the intellect can stand alone, on the basic whirling emptiness of reality, and figure everything out... is insane. Intellectually, we know this and yet many persist in trying. I think intellectualization holds as much juice as bar ladies and alcohol, but that doesn't mean its good for you. It's also my opinion, that Bo's thesis of intellectualism being SOM, is exactly right. I think he was pointing this out, but going about it all wrongly. He was trying to reason from a defined, static set of conceptualizations that were themselves faulty. He didn't know how to do that, given the terms of engagement. Intellectual terms of engagement, I might add, but nevertheless, howsomever it came about, a handy scapegoat was found for the unconscious discontent of the community, and an old, old process was repeated again. Fascinating, in a way, doncha think? Because make no mistake, something IS rotten in Denmark, and if it took a stubborn and wrong-headed Norweigian to point that out, it wouldn't be the first time. The MoQ has issues with the 4th level. It overemphasizes intellectualization with its very label, and not only is that a wrong move to make metaphyscially, it's wrong socially too. Not very many people are intellectuals anymore. If you guys want a club for intellectuals, go right ahead, I guess. But its an insane choice. Pirsig makes it completely clear, in the passage of ZAMM myths come like the wind and even the theory of Gravity is a ghost. --------- A rush of wind comes furiously now, down from the mountaintop. "The ancient Greeks," I say, "who were the inventors of classical reason, knew better than to use it exclusively to foretell the future. They listened to the wind and predicted the future from that. That sounds insane now. But why should the inventors of reason sound insane?" DeWeese squints. "How could they tell the future from the wind?" "I don't know, maybe the same way a painter can tell the future of his painting by staring at the canvas. Our whole system of knowledge stems from their results. We've yet to understand the methods that produced these results." I think for a while, then say, "When I was last here, did I talk much about the Church of Reason?" "Yes, you talked a lot about that." "Did I ever talk about an individual named Phædrus?" "No." "Who was he?" Gennie asks. ----------- Good question, Gennie. That's the kind of good questions you get when you get intellectuals discussing with artists. You get both sides of the brain, in community. Who was he indeed? And is there anybody around anymore who can even comprehend his words? 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
