MD,
I'm really trying to abandon the socialism vs. capitalism thread. The problem is
that someone seems to equate intellect with Stalin.... :-)
Anyway, I go on. I'd like to investigate what does it mean that the intellect is
more moral than society. I'd like to understand, mainly, if and how intellect
should dominate society.
Actually, once we agree that the market is a social pattern, maybe even the
social level itself, it should be obvious, according to the MOQ, that
intellectual patterns dominate, to a certain extent, the market. As well as
every social pattern.
Rightly, Platt and others scream for the risk of the *environmental* destruction
of the social level, and I think they are partly right. Actually, the SOM-based
intellect is not ready for that task, as Pirsig points out in Lila, especially
in
the 24th chapter. The determination of their denounce enforces my opinion that
we
are not completely living in the intellectual era. The dominant form of
intellect, SOM, is unable to carry on the *moral* task to become the *leader of
the evolution*.
«Therefore to the question: "What is the purpose of all this intellectual
knowledge?" the MOQ answers, "... to Dynamically improve and preserve society."
Knowledge has grown away from this historic purpose and become an end in itself,
and this growing away from original purposes toward greater Quality is a moral
growth. But those original purposes are still there. And when things get lost
and go adrift it is good to remember that point of departure».
(Lila, ch. 24)
Note that Pirsig writes "intellectual knowledge", not intellectual level.
Knowledge has a
social function. Of course the social growth from tribes to empires is also an
history of human intelligence and knowledge. The SOM is probably the form of
intellect that, more than any other, made it possible for the human race to have
the wonderful growth during the last 2,500 years we well know.
Then the SOM intellect has also been able to create a level of its own. Pirsig
mentions some of the key moments of the evolution:
«The day the first protozoans decided to get together to form a metazoan
society. Or the day the first freak fish, or whatever it was, decided to leave
the water. Or, within historical time, the day Socrates died to establish the
independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day
Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of reality».
(Lila, ch 22)
There's a continuity from Socrates to Descartes, on the path of the independence
of the intellect from the society. The creation of the self, and the
subject/object split have been IMO necessary steps in the direction of the
intellectual independence.
And it has been a moral process:
«Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of Quality
*supports* this dominance of intellect over society.It says intellect is a
higher level of evolution than society; therefore, it is a more moral level than
society. It is better for an idea to destroy a society than it is for a society
to destroy an idea»
(Lila, ch. 22)
The problem of the SOM is that when it has been able to reach its independence
and create a new level, it has demonstrated it's not up to the task of
*evolution leader*. The SOM tries to control completely the social level, and
this is a huge mistake. Pirsig thinks that this explains the history of the
twentieth century.
«But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that
science,
the intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over society, has a
defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no provisions for
morals. [...] Now that intellect was in command over society for the first time
in history, was *this* the intellectual pattern it was going to run society
with?».
(Lila, ch. 22)
«The MOQ suggests that the social chaos of the twentieth century can be
relieved
by going back to this point of departure and re-evaluating the path taken from
it. It says it is immoral for intellect to be dominated by society for the same
reason it is immoral for children to be dominated by their parents. But that
doesn't mean that children should assassinate their parents, and it doesn't mean
intellectuals should assassinate society. Intellect can support static patterns
of society without fear of domination by carefully distinguishing those moral
issues that are social-biological from those that are intellectual-social ».
(Lila, ch.24)
The first MOQ correction is to recognize the importance and role of society.
Intellect can't solve the biological-social moral conflicts. Society is up to
that
task. That's why, for example, it's wrong to destroy the market.
The SOM mistake went on up to the seventies, when another key moment happened.
«From WWII until the seventies the intellectual continued to dominate, but
with
an increasing challenge-call it the "Hippie revolution"-which failed. And from
the early seventies on there has been a slow confused mindless drift back to a
kind of pseudo-Victorian moral posture. ... The MOQ ... says ... the Hippie
revolution was the moral movement ... was a moral revolution against both
society and intellectuality.... ».
«Phaedrus thought that this Hippie revolution could have been almost as much
an advance over the intellectual twenties had been over the social 1890s but
this analysis showed that this "Dynamic" sixties revolution made a disastrous
mistake that destroyed it before it really got started».
«The Hippie rejection of social and intellectual patterns left just two
direction to go: toward biological quality and toward DQ. The revolutionaries of
the sixties thought that since both are anti-social, and since both are
anti-intellectual, why then they must both be the same. That was the mistake.»
(Lila, ch. 24)
Here is IMO the point. It seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that Pirsig is
saying that it was possible, in the sixties, to make another step beyond, toward
DQ. If it has not happened, it does not mean it is impossible at all. The MOQ
could provide the right shoes to walk that step.
What was SOM intellect lacking of, to be able of that step? One thing has been
the ability to distinguish the social-biological moral code from the
intellectual-social moral code. This ability is necessary in order to keep a
solid ground under our feet.
Another thing is the concept (?) of an undefinable Value. Formerly, at the
social level, the step beyond has been represented by those human rights Pirsig
mentions. Freedom of speech, free market, and so on, were initially an
"undefined Value", perceived generically as freedom. Then, seen from the
intellectual level, these rights become a set of precise static basic
*principles* that make it possible for the intellectual level to simply exist.
And now? How could we walk the famous step beyond? What is the *undefined value*
at the intellectual level? Why not beauty? Couldn't it be that to *dominate*
society is simply to force the social patterns to leave us the time and space
for a socially-empty, beauty-full life, whatever it means? Actually, in the
first chapter of Lila, Phaedrus says:
«I think what we're buying with these boats is space, nothingness, emptiness
... huge sweeps of open water ... and sweeps of time with nothing to do ...
That's worth a lot of money. You can't hardly find that stuff anymore».
thanks for your attention
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:21 BST