Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
Bob, Your threads introduces issues that are important (i.e. government, law, education, economics) and need to be explored within the context of MoQ. However your conclusions within the context of MoQ are completely alien to my understanding of it (from the response of others, theirs also) . Example: It is my understanding that MoQ subscribes to a theory of evolution, That reality as we know it evolved over time starting at the inorganic level, evolved to biological, then social, then intellectual. But in you're first post on government you come to this conclusion: [Bob] > This almost sounds like government falls in the biological level. What > I think government is, actually, is the interface between society and > biology. [Dave T] To me what this is saying that before there was any social grouping, of any kind, for any purpose, by any animal, governments evolved. A pair of cardinals built a nest about four feet from my front door this spring and raised three babies. After mating the male remained around during the egg laying and incubation to help protect the nesting female and helped with the feeding after the babies hatched. Rudimentary social behavior (i.e. joint efforts to protect, feed, and raise the young) evolved as a better "social" way to insure species survival. Would you have us believe that THE STATE or THE GOVERNMENT evolved some period of time before this? I don't think so. But you're posts sure seem to indicate that. [Bob] > In this case, I put 'discovered' laws inherently in society. > If this is true, the conclusion I come to is that the purpose of > intellectuals is to 'discover' law, which then advances society. [Dave] Well, sort of. Under MoQ, the intellect, through the empirical process proposes theories about "natural" processes that try to explain how they "really" work. The sensory data for these theories is manifest in the three levels below the intellect. The biological senses gather data, the intellect filters the data and and proposes a theory, both intellect and society then performs the role of "debunker" or "promoter" of these theories. Ultimately at some point society becomes the "keeper" of the promoted "discovered laws." and they become static patterns of value. These static patterns are always contingent upon fresh insight of the intellect. But while these "discovered laws" reside on the intellectual and social levels the "sensory data" from which these have been derived and the practical effect of these "discovered laws" can, and usually do, reside and work exclusively and discretely within one level. Then you go on to "created" laws and fall into the same trap as "government evolving on the biological level" case above: [Bob] > Intellectuals who believe in 'created' law are the ones who make society > go backward, since they destroy society and allow biological values to > reign supreme. Then, again, there are only two courses; tyranny or > chaos > 'Created' laws--laws that mean anything--belong firmly in biology, since they > can only be enforced through violence. > Law is part of Society. The State is part of biology. > States are biological patterns, law is a societal pattern. > Since the State is strictly biological it is utterly, absolutely > inferior to society. And when it expands, it reaches up and devours law > and society. Biological values reappear. [Dave] Let's look at a static inorganic, biological, social pattern of value most are quite familiar with, the automobile. Shortly after automobiles came into existence various governments "created laws" regulating their use. These "created laws" were and are enforceable through violence, i.e. fines, taking your car away, throwing you in jail for, originally scaring horses and riders, now for endangering other people in automobiles. Would you have us believe that these laws evolved on the biological level prior to societies domesticating the horse? Not only to you have the "Car-t" before the horse, you have the "created laws" governing the "Car-t" before the "Car-t", and horse, and people riding horses. Empirically, my sensory data says it ain't so, but this is always contingent on you successfully explaining how the "Car-t" came before the horse. Dave Thomas MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The aim of government is not Political Power and you have not made it >true simply >by saying it. I can say "Government will not exist forever >with coercion' with >equal truth, but it does not make it true. Bob replies: 'Government' is nothing BUT political power. If the 'government' cannot force me to do as it wants, there is no 'government.' A cop tries to pull me over for speeding...I drive on. He can do nothing to me without the threat of force. In fact, let's say I kill him. The government can do nothing to me...without force. I don't pay my taxesthe government can do nothing without the threat of force. I kill, I rob, I rape, I beat, I set firesthe government can do nothing to me...without force. There is not one thing the 'government' can make me do without the threat of force. >Hitler, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot all gained control of their governments. They did not stand on soapboxes and persuade people to commit mass murder. > > But we do, right? Judas Priest told me to commit suicide, Quake II taught me to >shoot up my high school. > Bob replies: I have no idea what this means. >Since government is based on coercion, it automatically falls in the >biological level. > > This is where I lose you totally. >All my comments that follow are trying to use your logic... >Actually it is the interface between society and > biology. And because it is coercive, it is extremely dangerous...as >exemplified by the mass murderers I just named. >Almost all States got their start by one tribe conquering another and >setting themselves up as rulers (royalty) who exacted tribute (taxes). >Since they provided no law for the people, people turned to the most >trusted to settle their disputes...usually clergymen. In this way law >slowly got its start. > Because of this, States and law are totally different things. States are >biological patterns, law is a societal pattern. >The three basic laws discovered are for protection of life, liberty and roperty. > > As a law...these are Social Level? What is the Intellectual level say >to these >laws are subject to? Bob replies: What are you saying? I don't understand this at all. > >If everyone followed those laws there would be no crime...no >murder, no slavery, no theft, no battery, no rape. If States followed >these laws there would be no war, no genocide...95 percent of the >problems in the world would cease to exist. > > If the laws are social, they wouldn't have been created if the biological problems >didn't exist. By MOQ definition Social Level is created to constrain the Biological >level... > Bob replies: That is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Laws are Social level! To constrain biological level. To support society. The best I can do, really, is suggest a few books..."The State," be Franz Oppenheimer, and "Our Enemy, The State," by Albert Jay Nock. Or Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard...the simplest and clearest are Richard J. Maybury. >Intellect is above society. How free can intellect be when it is under >government control? >Every special interest group in the world is attempting to gain control >of the State to force their values on others. Fundamentalists want to >gain control to outlaw abortion, have mandatory prayer in schools, and >teach creationism. > >Special interest groups are Biological too...They aren't higher than >government are they??? Then we just need more laws right a >bigger government, >right??? > Bob replies: Special interest groups are indeed biological. What they want are more laws, not less. The true purpose of law is to say 'no' to all of them. Not more 'laws,' but one simple one: 'no.' "We want you to outlaw our competition." "No." "We want you to force schools to teach creationism. "No." "We want you to take money from people and give it to us." "No." >Others want to outlaw their competition to protect >their wealth. Whoever they are, it is always about using the threat of >violence to force their values on others. >Since the State is strictly biological it is utterly, absolutely >inferior to society. And when it expands, it reaches up and devours law >and society. Biological values reappear. >As best as I can figure, States have killed 200 million people in the >last 100 years. >And this is the ugliest thing you have ever read here? >Hm > > Bob > > It's not that your sentiments are ugly, your misunderstanding of the >MOQ confuses >it. Most people here believe that Govt is purely social. >Law is Social. The >Constitution is Social. The State is Social Level. >The basic rights of human life and liberty...ahhh thats Intellectual Level. Bob replies: Law (and 'government') are social level. The State is biological. Take a look at "Braveheart," like I suggested. The English were the 'government' over the Scottishraping, murdering, stealing, destroying. Yet they were the 'government.' No, that wa
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >So to take Pirsig's example of the Zuni misfit... how was he >harming anyone? What if an individual or group of individuals does not >harm anyone >but threatens society? Bob replies: One of the things I wish Pirsig had discussed in detail is the role of 'government' in societies, both modern day and throughout history. Mostly he zipped right by it. If he ever writes another book, I hope he addresses this issue in detail. As for the Zuni misfit, I wish he had discussed it in more detail. When he writes 'peering though a window from outside,' what does that mean? Was he trespassing? Was he a 'Peeping Tom' doing it for sexual reasons? And getting drunk? What does this mean? 'Drunk and disorderly' in public? In every society that I'm familiar with these are crimes...minor ones to be sure, misdemeanors (literally 'bad behavior.') In this sense I suppose the Zuni misfit would have been a minor criminal in almost every society. As for the 'war priests'...who where they? The 'government' of the Zuni? Where they elected? Were they dictators? Pirsig never addresses these issues. And apparently the 'war priests' hung him by his thumbs because he boasted they could not kill him. If this is true the Zuni 'government' had no business doing that. He was harming no one. They were violating his 'freedom from speech' at the very least. And because they thought he was a witch? Well, that's 'freedom of religion.' Which is exactly my point. He was being oppressed by the Zuni 'State.' It was they the misfit went after. Not the 'society' but the State. And they tortured him simply because of free speech and religion. Exactly my point! A State was violating his life, liberty and property (your body is your property) simply because he was exercising his 'right of free speech'and because of his religion! He wasn't a threat to Zuni societyhe was a threat to the Zuni State. It would be the same thing if I told the U.S. government, 'I'm a witch, try and kill me' and then they hung me by my thumbs. I'm in the right; they're in the wrong. I'm harming no one, merely expressing the liberty to say as I please, and have whatever religion I want. Another thing to consider it that they were 'war priests.' Apparently the Zuni State was in control of religion--absolutely a no no! The Zuni 'war priests' were in direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution--violating religion and violating speech. Freedom from the State. That's what the Zuni misfit was fighting for, even if he didn't know itfreedom of speech and religion from State control. When the misfit called the government troops he was absolutely right to do so. (Another thing to consider is the U.S. State conquered the Indians...one tribe conquering another.) Now, how can an individual or group of individuals threaten society without harming anyone? There is no such 'thing' as society. A 'society' is a group of individuals with shared values. There are many 'societies' within one big 'society.' The only way they can form is without interference by the State. You can't harm society without harming individuals. > Distinguishing between individuals and society seems to be a big >problem in this >discussion. That is not meant as a put-down; I have >he same difficulty. When does >someone threaten society but not >individuals? Again, there is no such thing as a society apart from individuals. You can't harm 'society' unless you harm individuals. >What harms society without harming any other level? (not rhetorical >questions!) I don't understand the question. How about a concrete example? > > Seems to me individual freedoms are at stake here, but what else is at stake? What >are individual freedoms worth giving up for? Anything? Does any government have the >right to limit freedoms for the sake of society? You have the absolute right to do as you please as long as you do not injure or harm anyone, or their property, or defraud. WHO is to decide what freedoms to give up for the sake of society? Is the 'government' to say, "Even though you are not harming anyone your values are wrong. Therefore we are going to pass a law to force our values on you. We do this because we are smarter, wiser, and more moral than you are...If you do not follow it we will imprison or kill you," Why pass a law if no one is being harmed? Bob MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
Bob wrote: > [The MoQ] supports intellectual liberty and the free > exchange of ideas To believe otherwise is [to] believe > that some people are so intellectually and morally > superior that they have the right to use biological force > on others even though they're not harming anyone. Interesting. So to take Pirsig's example of the Zuni misfit... how was he harming anyone? What if an individual or group of individuals does not harm anyone but threatens society? Distinguishing between individuals and society seems to be a big problem in this discussion. That is not meant as a put-down; I have the same difficulty. When does someone threaten society but not individuals? What harms society without harming any other level? (not rhetorical questions!) Seems to me individual freedoms are at stake here, but what else is at stake? What are individual freedoms worth giving up for? Anything? Does any government have the right to limit freedoms for the sake of society? I think answers to these questions might serve this discussion... and I'll give my answers in another post, 'cause I'm in a hurry! -Scott MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
> Almost all States got their start by one tribe conquering another and > setting themselves up as rulers (royalty) who exacted tribute >(taxes). > A good movie about this process is "Braveheart," which deals with what happened in Scotland and to a lesser extent Ireland. The MoQ does not support Nazism, Fascism, Communism, socialism, almost all of liberalism and some of conservatism. Just as it supports intellectual liberty and the free exchange of ideas it also supports economic liberty and the free exchange of goods and services. To believe otherwise is believe that some people are so intellectually and morally superior that they have the right to use biological force on others even though they're not harming anyone. This can change peoples' behavior and values...toward the worse. Bob MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
David: Why don't you put toguether a 'topic of the month related to the Mythos'. I would, only that I already sent my sugestion. (up's this is not the LS, it is the MD.) I have study the Mythos of different cultures in my own (read as much as I could about it) and would love to share that experience with the group and learn more about it. The mythos is a very important topic, it is the Core of Pirsig's Phylosophy ( That's my humble opinion). Let me put it this way. If I was to teach a class on Pirsig's Phylosophy, a pre-requisite would be a complete course in studies about 'Mythos'. Besos a todos, Carmencita. David Buchanan wrote: > Fred and all Pirsigites: I'm was very psyched to see the letter from > Pirsig. Its kinda like having a bootleg recording of my favorite band. > Its not available in stores, you gotta get it from the hard core fans. > Thanks tons! > > Part of the reasons I failed to post a response to Fred's tale of his > insanity/enlightenment is my reluctance to interpet the meaning of > someone else's experience. (Yes, I've had a few mystical experiences > too.) I mean no one really understands the dream better than the > dreamer, even with the help of a psychoanalyst. Telling others what such > experiences mean is a tactic used by the leaders of cults and other > dysfunctional religious organizations. They will often go so far as to > claim responsability for the experience, saying "we did that for you". > (Notice Pirsig went out of his way to NOT take credit for it.) > > I've included the section of Pirsig's letter with the hope that we can > discuss it here amongst the Zen-heads. The big pargraph in the middle > seems the most interesting, where he starts out with "Prior to > enlightenment..." and ends with "...this phemonenon." I was startled by > the phrase "wandering thru the mythos" and his description of the > "mythos". > > To say the mythos is more than just myths may be correct, but its a > little awkward, so Pirsig says in this case it means "more than just > legends". He shows what a great writer he is even in a letter! Myths and > legends are something we almost never discuss, at least since I've been > here. Yet it seems so essential. Discussions of the mythos would help to > clarify the distinction between the levels of static patterns, > especially at the top two levels. > > (Bob Wallace sure made a mess of things in today's post, putting > government at the biological level, economics at the inorganic level, > putting society over the intellect and all the while providing twisted > political analysis and tortured historical facts. T'was about the > ugliest thing I've seen here.) > > I'd especially like to focus in on the notion that cultures select their > finite reality from the mythos. Pirsig seems to be implying that there > is one mythos from shich every culture on Earth is a derivative; that > the mythos is much larger than any given individual culture. > Fascinating, no? Further, Pirsig says "At this time there is an > abandonment of normal channels of cultural selectivity over thought." > Which brings me to my question... > > WHAT ARE THESE NORMAL CHANNELS OF CULTURAL SELECTIVITY? > This is not rhetorical. I really don't know. > > I've posted a few thoughts about the mythos from a Joseph Campbell > perspective, who is mentioned in Lila as the author of "THE MASKS OF > GOD". Pirsig said very near the end of Lila that Campbell's work goes a > long way toward explaining the nature of the mythos. I guess I'm trying > to get the ball rolling on that topic again, thanks to Fred. > > Here's another question. If the mythos is "the main stream, the whole > body of every idea that ever existed or can exist which each culture > selects from", then how is it different than the intellecutal level? I > mean myths and legends operate on a unconscious social level and help to > inform the language, but they aren't really ideas in usual sense of the > word. It where ideas come from to be sure, but it seems the mythos is > not intellectual per se. Its more basic than that, isn't it? > > David B. > > P.S. I think Platt is quite right about the naturalistic fallacy > dissolving in the MOQ. Its a relection of all the classic problems with > SOM. Is goodness actually in the object or is it merely subjective? > That's the question really posed by pointing to the naturalistic > fallacy. The MOQ reders it meaningless. It is a fallacious quest. (Which > is not to be confused with a fellatio request!) > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 12:30 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: MD Platypal Radicii > > > > Mr. Pirsig writes, > > > > "Making people laugh sympathetically about other people's > > disabilities > > is an enormous accomplishment. > > The fact that you are doing so well at it indicates that the > > phenomena > > that you experienced back in your 'insane' days may have been a k
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
> Almost all States got their start by one tribe conquering another and > setting themselves up as rulers (royalty) who exacted tribute (taxes). Let me give you a concrete, real-life example. Most of the countries in the Middle East are not countries, but artificial creations imposed by European conquerors. Saudi Arabia is an excellent example. The "Saudis" are just a tribe that conquered the surrounding tribes. Everyone there are actually "Arabians." What happened is the same as if a tribe of "Wallaces" conquered "America" and called the place "Wallace America" and everyone in it "Wallaces." Instead of taxation (there was nothing to tax) the Saudi tribe appropriated the oil wealth. They dole out small amounts of wealth as a welfare state to try to keep the others tribes quiet. There is why bin Laden hates the United States so much. We support a dictatorial tribe that uses the biological State to oppress the other tribes. There is no Law. What the Saudi tribe says is law is law--biological 'might makes right.' There is a 'discovered' law that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.' We call bin Laden a terrorist. To others he is a freedom fighter. What he's doing is what George Washington correctly described as 'retaliation.' Law is part of Society. The State is part of biology. Bob MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
In a message dated 5/26/99 10:48:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > The one thing that government cannot exist without is coercion, the > threat of violence and prison and force. As Mao so accurately noted, > "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The aim of government is not Political Power and you have not made it true simply by saying it. I can say "Government will not exist forever with coercion' with equal truth, but it does not make it true. > Hitler, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot all gained control of their > governments. They did not stand on soapboxes and persuade people to > commit mass murder. But we do, right? Judas Priest told me to commit suicide, Quake II taught me to shoot up my high school. > Since government is based on coercion, it automatically falls in the > biological level. This is where I lose you totally. All my comments that follow are trying to use your logic... > Actually it is the interface between society and > biology. And because it is coercive, it is extremely dangerous...as > exemplified by the mass murderers I just named. > Almost all States got their start by one tribe conquering another and > setting themselves up as rulers (royalty) who exacted tribute (taxes). > Since they provided no law for the people, people turned to the most > trusted to settle their disputes...usually clergymen. In this way law > slowly got its start. > Because of this, States and law are totally different things. States are > biological patterns, law is a societal pattern. > The three basic laws discovered are for protection of life, liberty and > property. As a law...these are Social Level? What is the Intellectual level say to these laws are subject to? > If everyone followed those laws there would be no crime...no > murder, no slavery, no theft, no battery, no rape. If States followed > these laws there would be no war, no genocide...95 percent of the > problems in the world would cease to exist. If the laws are social, they wouldn't have been created if the biological problems didn't exist. By MOQ definition Social Level is created to constrain the Biological level... > Intellect is above society. How free can intellect be when it is under > government control? > Every special interest group in the world is attempting to gain control > of the State to force their values on others. Fundamentalists want to > gain control to outlaw abortion, have mandatory prayer in schools, and > teach creationism. Special interest groups are Biological too...They aren't higher than government are they??? Then we just need more laws right a bigger government, right??? Others want to outlaw their competition to protect > their wealth. Whoever they are, it is always about using the threat of > violence to force their values on others. > Since the State is strictly biological it is utterly, absolutely > inferior to society. And when it expands, it reaches up and devours law > and society. Biological values reappear. > As best as I can figure, States have killed 200 million people in the > last 100 years. > And this is the ugliest thing you have ever read here? > Hm > Bob It's not that your sentiments are ugly, your misunderstanding of the MOQ confuses it. Most people here believe that Govt is purely social. Law is Social. The Constitution is Social. The State is Social Level. The basic rights of human life and liberty...ahhh thats Intellectual Level. xcto MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
In a message dated 5/26/99 8:39:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > If the mythos is "the main stream, the whole > body of every idea that ever existed or can exist which each culture > selects from," then how is it different from the intellectual level? I > mean myths and legends operate on an unconscious social level and help to > inform the language, but they aren't really ideas in usual sense of the > word. It where ideas come from to be sure, but it seems the mythos is > not intellectual per se. Its more basic than that, isn't it? "All of philosophy is a footnote to Plato" -???who said that??? You are right, David, Mythos is very different from the intellectual level. Mythos contrasts with the term Logos, which I'll define as our description of reality and thought (it's not but it's convenient). I took this concept from a book "Early Greek Philosophers" where it talked about the naturalistic philosophies of the early Greek thinkers. Mythos governs ideas the same way we move through time...only seeing in hindsight; our ideas only come from the wake of the intellectual patterns we are from. I would take apart Pirsig's comments and put it into four parts. "The main stream" - Mythos is the generative 'stream' which we are but a tributary of static Subjective(social/intellectual) thought patterns. I believe Pirsig considers Western thought as an extension of an ancient cultural pattern, the one that thought up 'rt' in Lila. And obviously his ideas on what is quality or virtue stem from here as well. But obviously these are "ideas" in themselves but note that they are without an intellectual structure to contain the shared concept. - it's the mythos. "[Mythos is]...the whole body of every idea that ever existed" This is the part which makes me also think of all of the Intellect level. I believe it does not mean the ideas themselves, but how our ideas are a growth in Subjective patterns that originates from a mythos source. Separate cultures have different Subjective patterns that lead to different thoughts as offspring. What I'm trying to say is that for the static patterns, the ideas of the Zuni Indians are an intellectual level and those of Western Thinkers are an intellectual level and they are DIFFERENT (everyone please comment here! I'm saying Intellect might have discrete divisions) but both are branches that stem from the common mythos. "or can exist" - I believe Pirsig is saying that cultures are limited in their Dynamic growth by strong social and intellectual patterns that does not allow complete freedom without going insane. "which each culture selects from, calling its own selection 'reality' - When a culture selects a particular view, any view outside is not real...it's all in your head. And we all have problems seeing things outside our 'reality.' Read Pirsig's letter again and you'll see that, DB. It's not the intellectual level, but getting away from it towards DQ. For you Casteneda fans out there it's tonal and nagual. logos and mythos. And as a final note...people stepping out of common culture patterns is happening more and more I believe with the dissemination of information and the disassociation people are having with their own cultural patterns. Columbine was just another Lila story. Hey there, Xcto MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD Wandering thru the mythos
David Buchanan wrote: > > (Bob Wallace sure made a mess of things in today's post, putting > government at the biological level, economics at the inorganic level, > putting society over the intellect and all the while providing twisted > political analysis and tortured historical facts. T'was about the > ugliest thing I've seen here.) > Bob replies: *Sigh* Economics is not at the inorganic level. It is at the societal. What I said is that most economists attempt to paste the inorganic laws of math and physics on top of economics. It'll never work. Pirisg wrote about the same thing in "Lila" when he talked about anthropologists doing the same thing...pasting physics and math on top of anthropology. That is what I said. Economics is based on people's values. The only economics school that believes this is the "Austrian" school. The one thing that government cannot exist without is coercion, the threat of violence and prison and force. As Mao so accurately noted, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Hitler, Mao, Castro, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot all gained control of their governments. They did not stand on soapboxes and persuade people to commit mass murder. Since government is based on coercion, it automatically falls in the biological level. Actually it is the interface between society and biology. And because it is coercive, it is extremely dangerous...as exemplified by the mass murderers I just named. Almost all States got their start by one tribe conquering another and setting themselves up as rulers (royalty) who exacted tribute (taxes). Since they provided no law for the people, people turned to the most trusted to settle their disputes...usually clergymen. In this way law slowly got its start. Because of this, States and law are totally different things. States are biological patterns, law is a societal pattern. The three basic laws discovered are for protection of life, liberty and property. If everyone followed those laws there would be no crime...no murder, no slavery, no theft, no battery, no rape. If States followed these laws there would be no war, no genocide...95 percent of the problems in the world would cease to exist. Intellect is above society. How free can intellect be when it is under government control? Every special interest group in the world is attempting to gain control of the State to force their values on others. Fundamentalists want to gain control to outlaw abortion, have mandatory prayer in schools, and teach creationism. Others want to outlaw their competition to protect their wealth. Whoever they are, it is always about using the threat of violence to force their values on others. Since the State is strictly biological it is utterly, absolutely inferior to society. And when it expands, it reaches up and devours law and society. Biological values reappear. As best as I can figure, States have killed 200 million people in the last 100 years. And this is the ugliest thing you have ever read here? Hm Bob MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD Wandering thru the mythos
Fred and all Pirsigites: I'm was very psyched to see the letter from Pirsig. Its kinda like having a bootleg recording of my favorite band. Its not available in stores, you gotta get it from the hard core fans. Thanks tons! Part of the reasons I failed to post a response to Fred's tale of his insanity/enlightenment is my reluctance to interpet the meaning of someone else's experience. (Yes, I've had a few mystical experiences too.) I mean no one really understands the dream better than the dreamer, even with the help of a psychoanalyst. Telling others what such experiences mean is a tactic used by the leaders of cults and other dysfunctional religious organizations. They will often go so far as to claim responsability for the experience, saying "we did that for you". (Notice Pirsig went out of his way to NOT take credit for it.) I've included the section of Pirsig's letter with the hope that we can discuss it here amongst the Zen-heads. The big pargraph in the middle seems the most interesting, where he starts out with "Prior to enlightenment..." and ends with "...this phemonenon." I was startled by the phrase "wandering thru the mythos" and his description of the "mythos". To say the mythos is more than just myths may be correct, but its a little awkward, so Pirsig says in this case it means "more than just legends". He shows what a great writer he is even in a letter! Myths and legends are something we almost never discuss, at least since I've been here. Yet it seems so essential. Discussions of the mythos would help to clarify the distinction between the levels of static patterns, especially at the top two levels. (Bob Wallace sure made a mess of things in today's post, putting government at the biological level, economics at the inorganic level, putting society over the intellect and all the while providing twisted political analysis and tortured historical facts. T'was about the ugliest thing I've seen here.) I'd especially like to focus in on the notion that cultures select their finite reality from the mythos. Pirsig seems to be implying that there is one mythos from shich every culture on Earth is a derivative; that the mythos is much larger than any given individual culture. Fascinating, no? Further, Pirsig says "At this time there is an abandonment of normal channels of cultural selectivity over thought." Which brings me to my question... WHAT ARE THESE NORMAL CHANNELS OF CULTURAL SELECTIVITY? This is not rhetorical. I really don't know. I've posted a few thoughts about the mythos from a Joseph Campbell perspective, who is mentioned in Lila as the author of "THE MASKS OF GOD". Pirsig said very near the end of Lila that Campbell's work goes a long way toward explaining the nature of the mythos. I guess I'm trying to get the ball rolling on that topic again, thanks to Fred. Here's another question. If the mythos is "the main stream, the whole body of every idea that ever existed or can exist which each culture selects from", then how is it different than the intellecutal level? I mean myths and legends operate on a unconscious social level and help to inform the language, but they aren't really ideas in usual sense of the word. It where ideas come from to be sure, but it seems the mythos is not intellectual per se. Its more basic than that, isn't it? David B. P.S. I think Platt is quite right about the naturalistic fallacy dissolving in the MOQ. Its a relection of all the classic problems with SOM. Is goodness actually in the object or is it merely subjective? That's the question really posed by pointing to the naturalistic fallacy. The MOQ reders it meaningless. It is a fallacious quest. (Which is not to be confused with a fellatio request!) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, May 24, 1999 12:30 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: MD Platypal Radicii > > Mr. Pirsig writes, > > "Making people laugh sympathetically about other people's > disabilities > is an enormous accomplishment. > The fact that you are doing so well at it indicates that the > phenomena > that you experienced back in your 'insane' days may have been a kind > of an > enlightenment as well as an insanity. The two tend to overlap. > ...Prior to enlightenment there is often a huge opening of the > mind to > the 'mythos' which in this case means more than just legends. It means > the > main stream, the whole body of every idea that ever existed or can > exist > which each culture selects from, calling its own selection 'reality.' > At > this time there is an abandonment of normal chanels of cultural > selectivity > over thought. The selection goes sort of crazy and you can think of > any damn > thing and think it is real and in a sense it is. When you start > wandering in > this mythos all rules are off and so you can pick up on strange > things. I > think your mind wanderings about me and the ideas in ZMM and Lila > probab
