Hello Brianl.
You "confession" (Jan. 2: MD Intellect > Society) has intrigued me
ever since I read it for the first time. I chose to put it up front again
and hope you are still on-line. Also, I have read the responses and
will review them in another post.
> About half a year ago, I was trying to explain the MOQ to a friend
> of mine, and when trying to discourse the four different levels of
> static patterns of value, I used an example that just came to my
> mind right then, that I hadn't ever thought about trying to explain
> with the MOQ and decided that it would be a good opportunity for
> me to see how well the MOQ held up dynamically (or at least see
> how well I understood it). So I spontaneously came up with
> an idea to try to both understand and explain at the same time.
> To my recollection, it came out pretty well, but recently I have
> returned to the thought and wondered if
> perhaps I was on target with my analysis and description. So I
> will present it to you now, and ask for your comments about my
> methodology and final conclusions. Why did I lie? Why,
> through much of my life, did I have such a natural (?)
> inclination to lie, and why was I so good at it?
If this is true (!) I find it most endearing. Really.
> I looked at the problem chronologically to begin with. When I was
> first born, there were no social patterns and there were no
> intellectual patterns for my person. The inorganic patterns and
> biological patterns had been established well before my birth, but
> it seems there were none of the upper level subjective qualities
> (this is perhaps a mistake on my part, a misunderstanding of these
> qualities. Did I have social patterns? This is one of my main
> problems). Growing up, I either didn't have the proper social
> contacts needed for development (dynamic breakthroughs) or I did
> not form the static latchings necessary to keep these
> developments. But in some fashion, my intellect was developed
> without significant social implications, and at some time I became
> aware of the concept of truth, and with it nontruth.
To start with the beginning: You ask if human beings "have" social
and intellectual patterns when newborn ...or if this is a wrong way
to look upon the static hierarchy? Very interesting. Pirsig speaks
of Lila Blewitt not having Quality rather Quality having her (page
142):
". . . It isn't Lila that has quality; it's Quality that has Lila.
Nothing can have Quality. To have something is to possess it,
and to possess something is to dominate it. Nothing dominates
Quality. If there's domination and possession involved, it's Quality
that dominates and possesses Lila. She's created by it. She's a
cohesion of changing static patterns of this Quality. There isn't
any more to her than that."
but does this shed any light on it? The inorganic and biological
patterns were established before your arrival (as you say), but what
about the social and the intellectual patterns? I have heard stories
about babies having been left among wild animals - wolves for
instance - and remaining wolf-like even if brought back later. Does
this say something about it? That our biological "pattern" won't
automatically develop social patterns if deprived of company
perhaps wolf-society patterns developed?), and with no social
patterns, no intellect ..... I think I go for that.
> As my intellect was developed and my social-self was either not
> developed or had regressed, I saw the truth-nontruth duality as
an opportunity for great usefulness through the ability to deceive for
> my individual purposes.
Well, at this point I think some wrong turns are made. First: You
were not abducted (:) rather imprinted by the (human) social level
patterns. Secondly: The much talked about "truth" as intellectual
value must be seen in the correct context. Surely any culture will
value truthfulness, no such can exist based on deception. The ?th
commandment says: "Thou shalt not lie!" and this was formulated
long before the Q-intellect level took hold. Intellect's "truth" is to
distinguish between what is OBJECTIVE from what is
SUBJECTIVE, and that is something totally different.
> To me the social values are the ones that keep
> others and their wellbing in mind,
Not that simple. Social value is the well-being OWN society and its
cause. So a social-minded individual may be cruel to other
societies and to those of own group who don't conform. But - mark
you - social value is an enormous betterment over biology, let
there be no doubt about that.
> and the intellectual values are the
> ones that deal with reasoning alone, and thus when reasoning is
> above compassion for others, things become very self-promoting
and egotistical.
OK, reasoning is right, and also that Intellect is above Society, but
this may well be a "compassion" on a more reasonable and
principal level, not the emotional (intuitive) Q-social one. Each
value level's mission is to subdue the parent level and Intellect
wants "society" to be intellect-value-based and such "individual
rights" societies are better but not as "good" if you understand.
NB! Q-intellect has nothing to do with intelligence!
Q-intellect-dominated societies (sounds like a contradiction) is
concerned about the rights of the individual ...at the cost of Q-
social values and it looked (to P. of LILA) as if society had allied
itself with biology, but ...that's another story.
> The only reason to do something is to further yourself.
> This then was my explanation of why I had such an easy time
lying, why I did it so often, and why I was so good at it.
Well, if you had a "gift" for lying (I am a bit taken in by this
confession :-)) I don't think it was any lack of social value
latching, it may even be that you sought status/celebrity by lying
and as such was obsessed by social value.
> So I then described to my friend how I was relearning the social
> aspects of quality, and statically latching things, and I no longer
> felt the need to lie like I did before. The discussion more or less
> ended and I didn't think of it for some time.
Good to hear that you have mended your ways :-)
> 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. Thus I believe my argument is
> flawed somewhere. My feeling is that it is in my idea and
> conception of social patterns of value. So where am I wrong, and
> what is the proper definition and description for society?
Hope this explains something, it's hard to get the nuances across,
but the gist is that intellectual value isn't lying and egotism.
Intellect is REASON and reason is to be "objective". Reason may
go against Q-social value, but not necessarily against the
community or country you live in. Besides, the social level is there -
always, cant be any intellect without it, just like there can be no
social level without biology.
Thanks for reading
Bo
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 - 16:01:47 BST