Warmly welcome Danila Oder! Hi to all MOQ discussers.
I have read Danila's message with great interest as it refers to
Richard Edgar with whom I had a dispute over Intellectual vs Social
Law.
How are we to understand the Quality levels? This has been going
on for a while now and will possibly keep going until a MOQ
"synod" is held to determine their nature. Danila's understanding
sounds sound to me, the point where I reared a little is this:
> Society's clamors for Intellect's solutions or for Intellect to go
> away are quieted for a while.
I don't think the Society "clamors for Intellectual solutions" in the
sense that social value recognize any Intellectual patterns at all.
We better look at the whole Quality development to see this fact.
The physical world (Inorganic level) does not recognize Life
(Biology). If we retort ..."dead matter doesn't recognize anything at
all....etc". we muddle the Quality idea and enter the subject-object
world where consciousness (mind) comes into play at some magic
moment.
(Danila I don't say that you do, it's just me generalizing freely).
The upper level is hidden to the one below, even at the Social- and
Intellectual planes. I do - BTW - not think that society is a purely
human phenomenon, once the "human" term (in the
consciousness sense) enters, the "mind/matter" notion pollutes
Pirsig's wonderful idea.
> My Intellect is definitely not at war with Society;
> it wants to improve Society.
There is a struggle between the levels, but war sounds a bit
sinister. I think Danila is right about Intellect wanting to improve
Society, yet the intellect-improved-society is not truly social-value-
society. Pirsig says that social value lifts evolution out of biology's
dog-eats-dog existence, but by doing so it creates a new stricture
that - in my opinion - is best seen in very old or even non-human
collectives: herds, tribes, clans ....etc. These patterns are social
value in its most pure form. In the same way that Life is most vital
in its simplest form.
However human culture advanced to a critical mass when some
"ambiguous" social pattern eventually took off on a purpose of its
own to become the static Intellectal level. Intellect's enemy is the
said atavistic social foundation, not advanced society which is its
experimental laboratory. Yet, Intellect's infringement on society can
never be social improvement in a fundamental sense, just as
Society's meddling with life can't add to biological value. The old
level's value is fixed forever.
IMO Even Intellect is rigid, but that's another story.
ROGER says:
> 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.
Good to see your zeal for the MOQ! I have strongly advocated the
non-perception (of other levels) view and feel a little responsible.
The perception term has a strong mindish connotation so why not
use MOQ's valuation"? As said to Danila the lower level does not
value the higher one in any other sense than an irritant - a danger
to "self", while the upper level values the lower in a very selective or
selfish way.
"Two levels away"? Perhaps the "unholy alliance" that we know
from the Intellect-Biology conspiracy example But all this talk of
levels conjures up (in Danila's words)
> Society and Intellectual levels are not 'things' with stable properties
> independent of the observer. In practice, they exist only in the
> value-relationship of two real entities.
Right, but as said (to Richard Edgar), human beings range
dynamically over the entire Q spectrum. However, when on one
level we are oblivious to anything else, but value-focus may shift in
split-second intervals.
Where in LILA does it say so? Shame on me, I cannot point to a
single passage, but everything points to this conclusion ....IMO!
> 3) Dan, when is it that modern society "hangs .....etc
Dan will undoubtly answer for himself, but let me offer this.
The modern heretic is not persecuted by society in the social-value
sense, it is the Intellect-influenced society which spots attempts to
undermine Intellect. P's (of ZAMM) Quality insight was spotted by
its "immune system" as dangerous to self - to reason. The spotting
not by any "agents", but by himself as intellect-focussed ...where
else could he be focussed at that time?
And look how my insistence upon Intellect as a limited (static)
value level is justified. Intellect is not a boundless mental realm that
contains "ideas". Its basic "atavistic" value is Objectivity versus
Subjectivity" ....SOM iow.
Roger is absolutely right in saying
> ............................................... 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."
No-one cares a bit about such academic stuff, but P. knew TO
HIMSELF that he had passed some "Actung. Sie Verlassen jetz
Die Vernuftiges Sektor" signpost and was falling off the edge of the
SOM world.
Better end this before my wife has me certified :-)
Thanks for reading.
Bo
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