Jonathan wrote...
On the other hand, this focus on the self (the individual) in the
intellectual level has its own dissenters. It's nice to have David B. back
with us posting on this point, and another pleasant surprise to have Maggie
resurfing to pick up on it.
Quoted DAVID B...
«The social level is about society, right? Its about the "giant", the
collective, right? And this is contrasted with the intellectual level, which
is about the individual, right? No. Its not right. This is one of the main
misconceptions about the 3rd level. Collectivity and individuality both
exist in both levels. The
scientific method, for example, absolutely requires many sets of eyeballs
and peer review....»
And then added...
Note that unlike me David B. still remains faithful to the concept of an
intellectual level, but this no longer focuses on the individual/self.
Instead, David tends to a mystical slant (is that a fair assessment David?).
I don't want to reopen the mystical vs. non mystical can of worms, but do
have an observation about certain "mystical" philosophies, particularly
those of the orient. While Marco focuses on self awareness, Hindu and
Buddhist mystics aim at a state of SELFLESS awareness (Nirvana, Zen).
DMB replies...
Ummm. Well, yes, I think that the MOQ falls apart when we do not remain
"faithful" to the basic structure, which certaily includes the intellectual
level. And yea, the MOQ is an intellectual description of a mystical truth.
Pirsig spends no small amount of time and energy struggling with that.
But my only point in the section you quoted is that individuality doesn't
belong to any level exclusively, nor does collectivity. Individual "things"
and larger collective systems appear at every level. The difference just
doesn't help in making distinctions between levels. It only confuses the
issues to think otherwise. Yes, the rights of individuals is an
intellectual level value, but thats about rights, rights that are supposed
to apply to everyone equally, not just this or that individual. I mean what
is more collective than rules that apply universally? Conversely, people
were very well aware of themselves as individuals long before the
intellectual level was born. Just think of all those self-aggradizing kings
and warriors of the ancient, pre Socratic world. They weren't just
individualistic, they were downright egomanical.
I think this is a false dilemma and is mostly just a cold-war hangover. Its
a legacy of that great battle between capitalism and communism, wherein the
problem isn't really with collective ideologies, but with authoritarian
governments. And this conflict goes back to the difference between the
values of agrarian city states of the near east, which were collectively
oriented, and the values of tribal forest dwellers, which could experience
feast or famine based on the performance of a single archer. But its not
about the levels in the MOQ.
Thanks,
DMB
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 - 16:01:50 BST