Hello everyone
RISKYBIZ9@aol.com wrote:
>
> ROG JUMPS IN WITH DAN AND RICHARD
>
> Sorry guys, but I HAVE to jump in.
Hi Roger
Oh no problem! Glad for the input.
>
> 1) First, could you all define your terms? What exactly is society and
> what
> is intellect? Be specific. I do not see that the two of you have even
>
> reached a consensus on the terms. Richard is considering economics,
> politics
> and law as intellectual patterns. This is the same issue I got into
> with
> Marco. If these aren't social, then what is? The social level is about
> the
> values of people interacting with each other. Certainly the intellect
> has
> impacted these -- usually for the better -- but they are the basic
> social
> values of cooperation, leadership and control and direction of
> acceptable
> interactive behavior.
Dan:
The problem in defining patterns of value is that they operate on all
four levels simultaneously.
>
> 2) Dan has COMPLETELY misrepresented the MOQ as saying the intellect
> needs to
> destroy and do battle with the social "in any fashion". Read the
> book. It
> is about freeing itself from the lower level, not destroying the lower
> level.
> Obviously there is some conflict and even some battles involved in
> freeing
> itself, but Pirsig warns against destroying your foundation. (I guess
> I am
> strongly in Richards camp on this one) BTW, I still never saw where
> levels
> cannot perceive something two levels away. Are you sure this is in
> the book?
> Please help ME to READ THE BOOK. ;^)
Hi Roger
I can certainly do as you suggest and read the book but for now perhaps
it's better to say that it is you who has misrepresented my words here.
The original question was whether intellect opposes society or ignores
it; I would say the former, while Richard advocated the latter. I
specifically stated, first, do no harm, so your objection is
unreasonable.
As far as intellect being unable to perceive something two levels away,
I didn't say that either. (Too much holiday cheer, perhaps?) But be that
as it may, let me offer a couple quotes to illustrate the original point
I was attempting to make.
"The language of mental intelligence has nothing to say to the cells
directly. They don't understand it. The language of the cells has
nothing to say to the mind directly. It doesn't speak that language
either. They are completely separate patterns." (pg. 229)
"The Metaphysics of Quality says there are not just two codes of morals,
there are actually five: inorganic-chaotic, biological-inorganic,
social-biological, intellectual- social and Dynamic-static." (pg. 343)
There are no such codes as inorganic-social or inorganic-intellectual
conflicts in the MOQ, nor any conflicts spanning two levels, as you may
note in the quote above. Perception itself is both Dynamic and static,
however, thus it may be that one may perceive the inorganic level
intellectually but conceptions arising from that perception will be
nonsensical.
>
> 3) Dan, when is it that modern society "hangs you by the thumbs"? Is
> that
> when you read a book or make a hypothesis or post a well thought out
> letter
> on the MOQ forum or when you practice Zazen? Or is it when you break
> a law
> or hurt someone? What do you mean by "get out of line"? Why all this
> disdain
> for society?
Dan:
It seems I've touched a nerve here for I didn't mean to indicate disdain
for society. On the contrary, society is the glue that holds us all
together, as I tried to make clear in my reply to Richard. Let's also
remember one doesn't necessarily have to hurt someone to break society's
law nor does one have to break the law to hurt someone. The "hangs you
by the thumbs" reference was intended as metaphorically stemming from
the Zuni brujo in Lila... nothing more.
>
> 4) Similarly, Richard suggests that those without cobblestone drives
> and
> SUV's get sent to insane asylums. Who does this "locking up"? Who
> "sends you
> away"? If the MOQ teaches anything , it is that our freedom doesn't
> depend
> upon these things, NOR does it depend upon their absence. They are
> just
> static patterns of value. Hell, even Phaedrus owned a boat. Certainly
> there
> is social pressure to succeed (make a fortune off a book) and to be
> popular
> (best selling author that meets Robert Redford) and to be beautiful
> (Ok, two
> out of 3 ain't bad) and all that other social stuff, but if you
> recognize it
> for what it is, you can take of it what you will and leave what you
> won't. I
> guess I am saying that running from success is just as much a case of
> slavery
> as being forced to be successful. Freedom is the key. Right?
Yes. This is my point all along.
>
> Oh, and as an afterthought, if you plan to respond (in kind) by
> pointing out
> how Phaedrus got "locked up", let's remember the guy was peeing
> himself and
> burning his fingers. He wasn't exactly locked up for questiong
> Descartes. (I
> can just picture Nurse Ratchett not letting him out until "You fully
> accept
> the Aristotelian world view." ) ;^)
You've reinforced my point here, Roger. You are making the same
assumption all "sane" people make in that we don't sit around pissing
ourselves or letting our cigarettes burn out on our fingers unless we
are truly mad, then we deserve to be institutionalized (hung up by our
metaphorical thumbs, so to speak).
>
> 5) One last thing, all this disdain for "retribution" as some current
> disease
> of societies seems kind of short-sighted. An eye-for-an-eye goes back
> for as
> far as societies. Even apes have their primitive versions.
Dan:
Again, if I gave the impression of disdain that was not my intent.
> I am not
> suggesting that social revenge is the best course, but intellectually
> speaking, we certainly know how to test it vs alternative methods. The
>
> intellect suggests questioning assumptions and trying new solutions in
> a
> containable way. It might be the best, or it might not. Those
> societies with
> the best systems to control crime should be models for the others.
> (of
> course, if you solve THIS problem you might create another).
>
> Personally, I sure as heck wouldn't want to live somewhere else, and
> much of
> my family (but not me) is relatively recently immigrated here (1st and
> 2nd
> generation ).
Well said. Thank you for your comments.
Dan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:51 BST