Hi Marco:
You wrote:
> > Everyone runs the same "me" program that doesn't belong to anyone?
> If you mean here that "my" life is not really mine, as I'm composed of a
> mix of patterns coming from the past, inhabiting me temporarily, and
> lasting after me.... I agree. But also I'd say that, during this time
> while they are inhabiting me, this "me" exists... and partially this
> "me" is able to create / change patterns as it's also a dynamic entity.
>
> The problem is the "belong" term. We all share all our "me" programs....
> (a sort of Sovietic Kolkhoz :-). So the patterns don't belong to anyone
> as a private property... they belong to everyone.
>From Chap. 15 of LILA: "This body on the left and this body on the right
are running variations of the same program, the same "Me," which
doesn't belong to either of them. The "Me's" are simply a program
format."
.
> > Cells have a special intelligence all their own?
> Again a problem of terms... IMO intelligence is the specific biologic
> function to read into reality. It's the tool for intellect. The
> "intelligence" of single cells is obviously another thing. It's their
> capability to interact with reality in order to preserve and duplicate
> their life. It has nothing to do with intellect so I'm cautious using
> the term "intelligence" (however it's not so bad, as they use the
> "intelligent" term also for uranium bombs ;-| )
>From Chap. 15 of LILA: "If that's what it was, the cells had won.
Probably they had bled enough to throw off infection, then swelled to
slow down the bleeding, clotted, and then slowly, with the special
intelligence of their own that had nothing to do with Lila's mind, they
remembered how they had been before she had cut them apart and
they carefully joined themselves back together again. They had a mind
and will of their own."
> > Since the 60's there has been a drop in intellectual and social
>> quality?
> How can we say it? It seems YES, but....
> maybe in the USA, let's remember that USA are not the world.
>
> Let's talk of social quality. I don't see all this great social quality
> up to the sixities.
> In the 30's/40's we had fascism and nazism and the WWII, and the Shoa,
> and Stalin, and Hiroshima; In the 50's and 60's the cold war, Vietnam,
> Budapest and Praga, the nuclear weapons in the hands of few people; In
> the 70's terrorism in West Europe, Pollution on a planetary scale,
> Pinochet in Chile and Vileda in Argentina... I could go on with a list
> of problems and tragedies (what about Africa? And Palestine? And
> Northern Ireland? And Yugoslavia?). IMO every period has good and bad
> things. Only after many years we will understand what's good in our
> times.
>
> For what about intellectual quality... as you know I do believe that the
> intellectual era has not been still estabilished, in the sense that up
> to now intellect has mostly been a servant of society; or it has just
> been able in few occasions to escape from society, but not to dominate
> it fairly. Probably in these times intellect is in the hands of the
> market more than in the 60's, so I could agree on the drop of
> intellectual quality.
You're correct. I should have qualified the question by adding "in the
USA." The question refers to Pirsig's analysis of the U.S. Hippie
revolution of the sixties in Chap. 24 of LILA.
> > Cooperation without coercion is a devastating fiction?
> Please, explain me this point... especially the "devastating" adjective.
>From Chap. 24 of LILA: "What the Metaphysics of Quality indicates
is that the twentieth-century intellectual faith in man's basic goodness
as spontaneous and natural is disastrously naive. The ideal of a
harmonious society in which everyone without coercion cooperates
happily with everyone else for the mutual good of all is a devastating
fiction."
>> Reality is understood by every infant?
> YES..... Understood? If you say that also cells are in some way
> intelligent, well, also cells in some way understand reality. It's not
> easy to understand what does it mean to understand.
>From Chap. 8 of LILA: "In a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality this
"scientific reality" platypus vanishes. Reality, which is value, is
understood by every infant. It is a universal starting place of experience
that everyone is confronted with all the time." Understand in this context
means "to apprehend the nature of."
> As I'm a terrible stubborn fellow, I think I could explain and defend
> all my answers (with the positive attitude of listening to the other's
> viewpoints). But usually I don't talk about Pirsig and or the MOQ in my
> everyday life. Of course I discuss a lot and explain my points of view
> about things, but I don't want to be seen like a Jesuit in the mission
> for a new religion. I never try to persuade others to consider the MOQ.
> I never suggest to visit the Italian MOQ site, or to read Lila. I like
> the Socratic way of discussion: rising doubts, more than offering
> answers. The most important thing is to persuade people to search.
Thanks for your response, Marco. You can see that I tied the questions
to quotes from LILA where Pirsig makes unambiguous declarative
statements. To disagree is to challenge Pirsig directly. As for
persuading others, I like your approach although from time to time,
depending on the person, I will become somewhat aggressive. Of
course, that never works.
Platt
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 - 16:00:59 BST