[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Andre Broersen]

Steve to Andre and Krimel:

I think Krimel has it right. According to Pirsig, intellectual
patterns date back to the beginning of history:

LC annotation 45. After the beginning of history inorganic,
biological, social and intellectual patterns are found existing
together in the same person. I think the conflicts mentioned here are
intellectual conflicts in which one side clings to an intellectual
justification of existing social patterns and the other side
intellectually opposes the existing social patterns. A
social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher level would
be found among prehistoric people and the higher primates when they
exhibit social learning that is not genetically hard-wired but yet is
not symbolic.

Andre:
Hi Steve (thanks for the reference) and Krimel:
If Pirsig suggests that intellectual patterns are found existing after
the beginning of history ( as I understand this; the time when people
began to record things in writing?...most of which evidence has not
survived of course) then who am I to argue? If this is the MoQ
understanding then so be it...and it does open up a different
understanding for me (which is great!).

The cave paintings in the south of France for example (earlier
mentioned here) are not simply paintings of animals. Keeping in mind
Campbell's 'Masks of God, these were depictions of rituals, of gods (
in the form of for. ex.  an ox, cow, lion or bison). We are witnessing
the very first creations, through paintings, of the mythos.

These rituals gave expression to the ideas people had about the world
around (and above) them. I am not sure of whether to call  this
'symbolic'. I think it is, because the rituals were intended to be an
actual enactment of how they, immediately apprehended (to use
Northrop's expression) the universe. However, through these ritual
displays (art) they did symbolise their understanding of the workings
of the entire universe. (as below-so above, as above-so below)

Jumping to ZMM...the mythos over logos...Chris asking Phaedrus if he
believes in ghosts. Phaedrus says that ghosts do not exist because
they are 'unscientific'. But throughout ZMM Phaedrus keeps on
'checking' this for himself. This mythos/logos dichotomy keeps on
hunting him (in some of the dream sequences). Phaedrus' line of
thinking...the mythos giving rise to logos which eventually becomes
part of the mythos again in an ever evolving progression.

It seems to me that Bodvar strongly identifies with intellect being
the logos (and the mythos, social) and that this intellect has won out
over the mythos (which, according to this [MoQ] reasoning it must,
because it is a higher level of evolution).

This view has been challenged and ridiculed for longer than a decade
on this Discuss and remains so.
It appears that Pirsig challenges this as well in this annotation 45.

Not wanting to put too fine a point on it but the 4th level of the MoQ
is the intellectual level...not the intellect level. There remains
much confusion (as Bodvar argues... about) the difference between
intellectualising and intellect.... . I am not convinced how useful
this distinction is... though I do find the S/O distinction useful as
an intellectual PoV. For me, the rigorous distinction presupposes the
destruction of the mythos as it is incompatible with the logos ( which
I interpret as the S/O distinction...correct me if I am wrong please).


The mythos over logos remains a central theme in ZMM. A mind divided
agains itself, and repeated in LILA...the peyote experience with the
Indians. Both the mythos and the logos are present as static PoV's
within the totality of our own static PoV's. ( come to mind is Carl
Jung with his arch-types...'collectively shared memories' [ whether
one is aware of them or not] (cringe goes Bodvar!!!).

Phaedrus makes it very explicit that with Aristotle our scientific
understanding of reality was born. A powerfully argued logos designed
to overthrow the mythos.... But the mythos has never been overthrown.
It is still with us ( and perhaps in the not too distant future
Aristotle will become part of this 'realm')... in the form of rituals
and customs that we commonly name culture. If culture is the social/
intellectual level then this is perhaps the battle ground...the
intersection where the code of the moral battle (social/ intellectual)
is taking place.But it is a bit more complex than this because what
this shows is that it is not only a battle between levels but also a
battle at the same level...namely the intellectual level.

If the mythos is an intellectual PoV and if S/O is an intellectual PoV then
you have a mind divided against itself.

The MoQ can be seen as an attempt at reconcilliation and integration.
Pirsig has argued in LILA that a 'scientific' understanding of reality
is just as much 'grounded' in the social level as the 'mythological'
understanding is. This reconcilliation and integration has occurred
through a shift in assumptions upon which each is based ( myth and the
gods, science and SOM). The shift is of course that Quality/ Value is
the monism and the source of experience.

Subjects and objects disappear, gods disappear. Just as different
conflicts of value can be resolved at the same level, so can this one:
at the cultural level.

I won't bore you any further but would really appreciate
(constructive) criticism. This will help me with all facets of the
MoQ.

Regards
Andre