[MD] Julian Baggini: This is what the clash of civilisations is really about

John Carl ridgecoyote at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 13:00:37 PDT 2015


Dan,

Before I dive into the gist of our evolving dialogue, I'd like to recall
the nature of the subject of our thread - what this clash of civilizations
is really about.

In a nutshell, the secular open-mindedness of Western Democracy has left it
incapable of dealing with radical fundamentalism's appeal to large swaths
of the globe.

I agree.  Which is one reason I see values in discussing religious issues
in this forum.  Now onward!

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:




> > Jc:  I think you are right, but mainly about that unifying effect of a
> > narrative story - the novel is a story unfolding in time, and thus as
> > true to itself, a species of truth which speaks analogously to higher
> > truth.  Analysis and philosophology are great at picking apart this
> > process, after the fact, but the cutting edge of human evolution is
> > artistic in nature, not analytic.
>
> Dan:
> I tend to disagree with this. A novel is a lie. It is a fictitious
> story, not the truth in any sense of the word.



Jc:  I guess it depends upon what you mean by truth.  A novel is an
expression of a person's story. Perhaps what you mean by truth is
"factual".  That's "a" definition, I guess.  But I don't subscribe to that
particular aspect of SOM.  No, by "truth", I mean the value of the 4th
level, which is ultimately indefinable as a discreet concept, but rather a
sort of urge toward, conceptualization itself.

Thus a novel can be, and often is, A truth.  It helps us conceptualize in
our own lives, then that is what truth is all about.


Dan:


> Each person who reads
> it will take from the pages that which they are familiar with and
> leave the rest behind. Sort of like experience. I remember reading in
> the Guidebook to ZMM how Chris was upset when he read ZMM for the
> first time. He said: but that's not how it happened at all! He had his
> own narrative in mind and it didn't balance with what he read.
>
>
Jc:  Yes, but, Chris wasn't really a casual reader of the novel, eh?  It
was about him, about his life and naturally his remembered experience is
vastly different than his father's.  It is that way with all of us.  The
truth isn't in the remembered facts, the truth is in the way we interpret
memories of common experience, so as to mesh, so as to make a meaning full
story.


> Jc:  I think the first step should be made toward truth.  That is, the
> > idea of a truth, to be sought.  This is just what I'd deem, the gentle
> > minimum for dialogue.  The second step is to aknowledge that each of
> > us owns a partial truth, that we need others to confirm our truths.
> > Truth is an ideal object, in a social game.  The "game" though, is
> > quite serious.
> >
> > Allen Watts, in Psychotherapy East and West, says the great social
> > delusion, at the basis of all suffering, East and West, is to take the
> > game seriously, in the wrong way.  and thus, not take the play,
> > seriously enough!
>
> Dan:
> I guess it'd depend on what play we're talking about... right?
>
>
Jc:  Right :)

> Jc:  You can't just think about any one - the triune reality we deal
> > with involves all three in constant flux and communication.  The
> > relation of time and thought, is what Randy's book was mostly about.
>
> Dan:
> Nope. I beg to differ. I do believe that is the game that Alan Watts
> was talking about. Most people play the tomorrow game... I'll write my
> book... tomorrow... I'll be a better person... tomorrow. And at the
> same time, they tend to think yesterday is dead. That nothing will
> ever change what's already happened. They never realize that all those
> tomorrows and yesterdays amount to nothing in the end. They're stuck
> playing the wrong game, seriously. And if that's what Randy is on
> about... too bad.
>
>
Jc:  I know what you mean, about the psychological addiction to the
future.   Action and choice can only be instantiated in the indeterminant
present.  But the present itself would have no meaning, without a past for
context and no decisions would matter, without a future to project.  You
can't have any single aspect of time, they always go together.  At least as
long as life continues.


>
> Jc:  I should quote you from ZAMM: "It's asinine, neh?".   So this
> idea, or intellectual pattern just sits there, "shining" with nobody
> to notice or care?   No, you know that isn't true... so it comes down
> to the individual's appreciation vs. the crowd's appreciation.  But
> the thing is, if the crowd NEVER takes a "shine" to an idea, it dies.
> It is with some crowd in mind, that publishers and librarians say yes
> to a set of ideas.   without that consideration of social usefulness,
> all ideas fail to live.

Dan:

> Somebody noticed. Otherwise, the idea wouldn't exist. See, ideas pull
> people up to the next level. It is easy to think they filter down, but
> that's not how the intellectual level operates. As I said before,
> Einstein toiled away in virtual obscurity for years before his ideas
> caught hold. It wasn't that the theory of relativity leaked down to
> the masses... rather, a few people finally noticed what Einstein was
> on about and stepped up to that level.
>


Jc:

You say "ideas pull people up to the next level" and I agree.  That is what
I said about truth - it's the urge to conceptualize (or create ideas) and
so it could equally be said that "truth pulls people up to the next level"
Truth is a sort of mental perspective and when you climb "higher" you see
more.

But climbing a mountain does not mean we are flying.  I think human
thinking should always be concretely grounded.  The levels are abstractions
about human thinking.  Where does the MOQ's 3rd level, actually "ground
out" in experience?  I always assumed it grounds out in the patterns of
actual human societies, but actual human societies are mixtures of all the
levels and so we can't talk about the levels as discretely as advised.
This needs clarification, imho.  And you're just the guy to do it, Dan.  :)




>
> Dan:
> Intellectual patterns grow from the social level but acceptance has
> nothing to do with them. In fact, social level patterns can be seen as
> in direct opposition to intellectual patterns. In Lila, the Victorian
> culture is a prime example.
>
>

Jc:  The Victorian era was all about the ascendancy of the intellect.
They, more than any other before them, accomplished the mastery of dividing
the proper roles and duties of the levels.  Men ruled in the intellectual
sphere and women in the social. Everything had it's place and you dare not
use the language of the factory floor, in the drawing room.

Victorian means England and an Empire, upon which the sun never set.  No,
we don't want to return to those times, but they were an important and
necessary step on the way to how we got here.   The success of that society
in that time was NOT due to the way social patterns conflicted with
intellectual, but the ways in which they harmonized and reinforced each
other.






> >
> > Dan:
> >
> > >From what I understand, Robert
> >> Pirsig was pretty much a loner too during his work on both ZMM and
> >> Lila. It wasn't that their ideas needed crowds so much as it was they
> >> attracted crowds when noticed.
> >>
> >
> > Jc:  I'm going a bit deeper and pointing to the underlying social
> > framework of the problems Pirsig was trying to solve.  The fact that
> > his work did attract crowds, means his ideas "won".  He succeeded in
> > expressing the solution of his generation.  On a person level, I'm
> > sure he wasn't motivated to be a popular success or cater to the
> > shallow needs of any crowd.  If that was the case, he'd  have sold out
> > to Redford in that New York hotel room.
>
> Dan:
> He did. Remember? He told Redford he had the rights to the book. It
> was only later that the details never got ironed out.
>
>

Jc:  Ok Dan, you got the facts right, as usual.  But the TRUTH of the
matter, is another story...



> >JC:
> > This is a big topic with me.  It was probably that passage, more than
> > any other that so endeared me to Pirsig's work.  It dovetails
> > perfectly with an insight of Jacques Ellul's, that there are two human
> > frames of reference - images and words and these two realms coincide
> > with two different terms - Truth and Reality.  But Pirsig adds the
> > idea that Truth is intellectual, and Reality is social.   What an
> > amazing insight.  which nobody much gets.  All I know is that its an
> > insight that earned MY life-long loyalty.
>
> Dan:
> If I am not mistaken, reality is made up of all four levels, plus
> undefined Dynamic Quality. It is not confined to social patterns. Be
> that as it may, as a writer, I use words to form images. I paint
> pictures with my stories.
>
>
>
Jc:  In ZAMM, Chris asks his dad if ghosts are real.  The automatic
teacherly response is a factual "no". But when a deeper context is revealed
in the question - that the term "ghosts" has different meanings to
different peoples, the truth is out that yes, ghosts are real.  Ideas are
real.    We deem real, those ideas which we can agree upon.  As a writer,
you persuade others to 'see' a new reality.   A noble task.





>
> > Jc prev:
> >
> >> > I'd like to hear your response to  Pirsig's willingness to find
> >>
> > Jc:  (splutters)  But Dan!  That's my point entirely!  Why has nobody
> > noticed that Aristotle, James and Pirisig (and the Primal Americans)
> > are saying the same thing??
>
> Dan:
> Didn't you read the quote? That is precisely what Robert Pirsig is
> objecting to... that people claim he's saying the same thing as
> Aristotle... as James... as etc. Not sure what your point is here.
>
>

Jc:  Ok, we have stumbled upon a big point of conflicting interpretation
because I absolutely disagree with you.  Here, let me lend you the
expertise of somebody who took logic once at a Jr. College, (smile)  This
is Pirsig's conclusion

_" then why has no one ever noticed that Aristotle
  and Spinoza and William James are all saying the same thing?"

The statement following the "then" is the main thrust of his argument.  His
implication is that since he himself, has pulled together the various
groundings of Aristotle, Spinoza and James, then his work is original and
important.    That doesn't mean the fact that he's saying much the same as
James, Spinoza and Aristotle in any way obviates his accomplishment because
after all, he didn't get his Aristotle from reading lots of Aristotle, any
more than he got his congruity with James from reading James.  It's because
great minds think alike and the congruence of great minds, generate the
perennial search for truth. Pirsig is making an argument for his inclusion
in the pantheon that the Academy reveres.  Not by making his own line of
thought alien to the traditional sources and authority, but by aligning
with - at least in the main thrust.  There are always differing factual
disparities across time and place.


> Dan:
> By claiming he is simply rehashing other philosophers' work you are
> effectively refusing to see anything original about the MOQ.
>
>

Jc: Oh piffle.  First off, I'm not claiming he's rehashing.  That would be
somebody who reads Aristotle, James and Spinoza and then cleverly
assimilates them under a catchy-sounding title.  Pirsig is no mere
philosophologist.

Furthermore, I don't really care all that much about originality.  A
gorilla smearing feces on cardboard can generate really original shapes,
but what I seek is the appropriate.  I don't care if Pirsig was or was not
original.  He was and is, eminently appropriate.



> Dan:
> I think there is a difference between perennial philosophy and saying
> the same thing. Perennial philosophy is what's beneath the surface.
> It's sort of like saying the English language and the Spanish language
> say the same thing. In one sense, they do. But in a deeper sense, each
> language is original in its own right and to conflate them is to do
> each a disservice.
>
>
Jc:  Well, I myself have had big issues with the way Californians
especially, have conflated Zen with a sort of laid-back, do-nothingness, so
I can see it's often problematic, this issue of conflation.

It's not that I think there is any problem with laid-back, do-nothingness,
god knows.  Nor Zen.  It's the conflation that's the problem.  But I hope
you have gotten a sense that I don't mean to minimize the MoQ in any way,
and it's only in the hope of raising it in the perception of the
gate-keepers of academia, that I tie it into the thoughts of the great
minds of the past.




>
> > Dan:
> >
> >>
> >> On the other hand, if the MOQ does offer something original, why
> >> attempt to cover it up by bringing in other philosophers and saying:
> >> There! He's saying exactly what James is saying! Sure, Pirsig is
> >> simply mimicking Royce and his Absolute.
> >>
> >
> > Jc:  No, I don't believe that.  For one thing, mimicry would imply
> > that Pirsig read Royce.  And before the new millennium, I doubt
> > anybody had read Royce.
>
> Dan:
> Ah. So his ideas were just sitting there all by themselves? With
> nobody noticing them? Sound familiar?
>
>
Jc:  Ok Dan, here's a question for you to consider:  Does the 4th level
describe something real?  Or is it all an illusion?





> JC:
> > Truly, I'm not trying to advance either
> > Pirsig OR Royce as  persons.  I'm trying to advance the ideas they
> > both expressed.
>
> Dan:
> As I said, I write. And in doing so, I'm always on the lookout for
> oddballs.



Jc:  Lucky you!  You've certainly found one in me!


Dan:


> Some time ago I read about this guy... pretty nasty sort of
> brute. Killed a lot of people. Didn't care about anyone or anything.
> Went to prison not once but many times. Killed inmates and guards
> alike. Anyone who messed with him.
>
> Seems that one of the guards noticed this fellow didn't have
> anything... no friends, no family, no money for the commissary. So he
> loans the guy a buck. This was back when a dollar was a dollar.
> Anyway. The two get to be friends. The guard begins bringing the
> convict paper to write his life story.
>
> Eventually the guy is executed for his many and sordid crimes and the
> guard quits. He spends forty years trying to get the manuscript
> published and he finally succeeds. They say it was actually a pretty
> well written book considering the author had no schooling to speak of.
>
> Being the inquisitive sort I of course searched everywhere for a copy
> but there are none to be found. Seems as if the man and his ideas
> cannot be separated. Since the man was deemed incorrigible, so were
> his ideas. If Robert Pirsig was really a madman, would we have ever
> heard of him? Doubtfully.
>
>
Jc:  I agree with your conclusion, of course.  But I really liked your
story.  I saw some sort of scientific article recently about the nature of
addiction and that people who really "hit the bottle" or get addicted to
drugs are those with no or failing  social connections.  It's probably why
AA works.  Group acceptance is the deep down drug that all humans are
programmed to crave.


Take care,

John



More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list