Brian Taylor wrote:
"Until over the past few weeks, when it came back into my mind. If social
values were what was supposed to keep my intellect in check from egotism,
why is intellect a higher static pattern of value than society? By my
argument, I was justified in lying, and even it was the moral thing to do."
As a recent subscriber to moq_d, let me first apologize for my ignorance of past
discussions and the MOQ in general. I first read Zen and the art of MM in my
early twenties and Lila soon after when it came out in '91. Like many great
books, I took some ideas with me and proceeded to forget about the rest. Now,
as a latecomer to graduate school (after a seven year hiatus at the post office)
I am reading Lila once again. I am studying economics and particularly the
economy of regions or settlements. This has led me outside of economic theory
and into theories of complex systems. I had a memory of Pirsig's comments on
the emergence of NYC without any central design from Lila, so I searched my
bookshelves and pulled out Lila again for a quick read over Christmas break
(actually, I am only half way through it at this point)
One aspect of Pirsig's MOQ has particularly bothered me over the past couple of
days. I am sure this has been discussed in the group before, but I am searching
for a quick remedy of this, so forgive me for revisiting something that many of
you have already covered (I know, I should at least finish Lila before bothering
you all). I have the same reservations as Brian about the order of the
hierarchy of values. It seems perfectly reasonable to say that the inorganic
emerges out of chaos and biology out of inorganic. However, the intellectual
should be confined to the individual as a property that emerges from the
biological. When information is processed by the intellect and shared with
other individuals, society emerges. For the intellect to rule over society it
would require putting the individual over the collective. This seems to go
against my intuition of some universal principle (which one?, I'm not sure). It
is my believe that society has a mind of it's own that operates above and beyond
the intellect. Of course, information may be passed back and forth between
society and the intellectual just as between the intellectual and the
biological. Thus the intellectual may have some influence on society and
vice-versa, but there cannot be a distinction that places the intellectual above
society-since society is the result of the sharing of information processed by
the intellectual capacity of individuals. This appears to be a blunder on
Pirsig's part. This does not mean that I am arguing for the state of a nation
to be placed over individual freedoms (although, it certainly is in most
instances without too much protest among its civilian components), it means only
that I believe that an idea such as democracy exists in the domain of the
intellectual only while it is dynamically processed by the intellect of the
individual. Once this idea is shared with others it enters into the domain of
society. As a static quality of society it exists in the customs and laws of
its institution. Dynamic quality is always present and democracy evolves along
with other institutions in society. Sometimes in the direction of the
individual equalities and freedoms and sometimes away from it. But always,
society remains separate and on a higher level than the intellect. Perhaps, I
am missing something or maybe this has already been visited by this group and
resolved. I would appreciate any comment or short summary, if so.
Peace,
Andy
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 - 16:01:45 BST