> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2000 11:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Approval required: > > David > > > Diana, Rick and all Focs: > > > > > > Sorry, Diana. > > > I didn't intend to blame anyone in particular when I asked, "Where > were the > > > moderators this month?" I'm grateful that you're thinking of making a > third > > > forum. You're very generous and this is a really bad time to be > blaming you > > > for anything. In fact, I was very surprized to learn that there > weren't any > > > moderators this month. That little bit of news explains quite alot. > I'd > > > assumed all the normal rules still applied. > > > > > > But I think if everbody tried a little harder to stick to the point, > we > > > wouldn't even need moderation. In terms of blame, I'd say anyone who > strayed > > > from the text or went outside of the first three chapters is guilty, > and > > > that includes me. But let's say.. I make a motion that... its a > standing > > > rule no matter what else is going on in a moderated forum... > irrelevant > > > posts ALWAYS get bounced. (And sent back for editing with a nasty note > about > > > the evils of sloppy thinking?) > > > > > > And while I'm at it, may I encourage everyone on the unmoderated side > to > > > harshly scold all irrelevant posters? Please, accuse them of being > rude and > > > distracting children. Subject them to public humilition and > intellectual > > > scorn. Just kidding. Whew! Thank god for moderators! > > > > > > By the way, I'd offer to preform those moderating duties, but my > access to a > > > computer is limited and I don't know much about them. Plus, I'm a > really > > > mean bastard. Just kidding. > > > > > > Now moving on to what Rick said... > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Richard Budd [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 11:48 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: MF First 3 Chapter Summary > > > > > > > > > > > > As for questioning Pirsig's identification of Indians as the > originators > > > > American values... I have a book (somewhere, I'm looking for it--) > that > > > > proposes this identification has been made before and is erroneous. > It > > > > points to the fact that it is now part of the circulum in many New > York > > > > State schools to teach that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by > the > > > > Iriquois despite the fact that there no evidence for this at all. I > > > > believe > > > > his argument claims that these "historical links" are politically > correct, > > > > relatively recent and revisonist. (I wish I could find that book). > > > > > > > [David Buchanan] Hmmm. I think the unlocated book and the view it > > > represents can best be understood as part of that continued split in > the > > > American personality. As Pirsig puts it in the last paragraph of > chapter > > > 3... > > > > > > "Phaedrus thought the Indians haven't yet lost this one. They > > > haven't yet won it either, he realized; the fight isn't over. It's > still the > > > central internal conflict in American today. It's a fault line, a > > > discontinuity that runs through the center of the American cultural > > > personality. It's dominated American history from the beginning and > > > continues to be a source of both national strength and weakness > today." > > > > > > Your lost book is very likely part of that continued struggle. The > > > description of Indian influence as a recent invention by politically > correct > > > revisionist clearly shows that its just another round in the "culture > war". > > > Both sides in that war would like to lay claim to freedom and > Democracy as > > > its own. Both sides want Jefferson on their team. > > > > expletive deleted > > > > > > I think its a big mistake to take the "Indian origins" idea too > > > literally or to take it too personally. I mean, a European looking, > > > English-speaking cowboy can have Indian values in his heart. An Indian > can > > > go to Harvard to study Greek philosophy or otherwise internalize > European > > > values. A Jew can be a mystic. An Italian Catholic can be a freedom > loving, > > > noble savage in his heart. A brown-shirt is a brown shirt no matter > what > > > color his clothes are or where he from, if you know what I mean. > > > > > > I think Pirsig's insight about Indian values was that they're > > > already in us. We've already internalized those values, its just a > matter of > > > degree. The split between Indian and European values runs through you > as an > > > individual and through Western civiliaztion as a whole. Its silly to > start > > > picking sides, you'll only alienate part of your own personality. > > > (Remember in the teepee scene when he recognizes those Indian values > > > in himself, as his other half, and how he felt at home for the first > time > > > because of that recognition? I think its true for all of us, even if > you > > > live in New Zealand or Hong Kong. Its not about geography, its about > > > values.) > > > > > > And I don't think we can criticize Pirsig for being wrong just > > > because freedom comes from other places too. He never asserted that > the > > > American Indians have exclusive rights or that they're are the > exclusive > > > source of freedom. We know he's still got alot left to say about > Indians and > > > so his explaination is still incomplete at the end of chapter 3. I > want ot > > > draw attention to my next point. PLEASE PONDER THIS.... > > > > > > It's no accident that Pirsig goes several places in search of a > > > non-SOM way of seeing things. He goes in several directions looking > for the > > > origins of a sense of "Quality" that is more primary than "whatever > you > > > like" subjectivity. And its no accident that he finds clues in the > ancient > > > Sanskrit (rht), in the ancient Greek Sophists (excellence), and in the > East > > > (dharma, karma and Zen). I think the idea is that he can go to Asia or > to > > > our ancient past to find non-SOM ways, but its easier to get it from > > > American Indians because it is with us here and now. Its already in us > and > > > so we don't need to become Buddhists or learn extinct languages. > > > > > > And I think the Indian values are just one way that mystical values > > > have been expressed. In fact every major religion has an esoteric core > of > > > mysticism. Its the one thing that all religions have in common. I > think > > > Pirsig goes East and back into our history because its more evident > there > > > than it is in the modern West. > > > > > > In fact, I've noticed that the posters who wish to downplay the > > > "peyote illumination" express opinions about mysticism that > demonstrate a > > > lack of understanding. I forget who said the Indians' lack of > ceremony, for > > > example, was somehow not mystical. But I think that was Pirsig's point > in > > > talking about the lack of ceremony in that teepee. Ritual is the > static form > > > of religion. Ritual is the static behavior, the same actions and words > are > > > repeated over and over, like a Catholic Mass. The lack of ceremony is > a hint > > > about the Dynamic quality in the Indians' religion. And this same idea > is > > > connected to the contrast between Lila's fake hair and nails and > authentic, > > > in-the-bones attitude of the Indians. Ritual is brittle and hard like > > > Victorian wrought iron, but mystical religion is about open space > where the > > > wind blows free and there is nothing to break the light of the sun. So > when > > > someone asserts that the Indians are not mystical because they lack > > > ceremony, it only tells me that they don't really understand what > mysticism > > > is or how it is connected to DQ. It only tells me that they don't know > what > > > ritual is and how its connected to static Quality. > > > > > > And while I'm at it, the "de-hallucinogenic" experience is connected > > > to mysticism like Baptism is connected to the Catholic Church. They > are both > > > standard forms of induction into the religion, but generally speaking > the > > > former is Dynamic while the later is static. That's why the Bishop > gets > > > nervous when a Saint comes to church. It reminds him that he's just a > pale > > > "imitation" of the genuine article. But I don't wish to beat up on the > > > detractors too much. There is a tremendous cultural bias. And trying > to > > > understand mysticism in intellectual terms isn't rocket science. Its > alot > > > more difficult than that. > > > > > > DMB > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. > > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using Endymion MailMan. > http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/ > MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
