Dear David B.,
You asked 3/2 18:39 -0700:
'1) Is there anything in the universe that is not both an
individual entity
AND part of a larger collective system? If so, what is it? If
not, why not?
2) In what ways can intellectual pursuits like Jungian
psychology,
comparative mythology and comparative religious studies shed
light on the
more ancient social level? ...
3) In what ways do the actions of fundamentalist terrorists
contradict
intellectual values? And in what ways do the policies of the
current U.S.
administration, the ones implemented in response, contradict
intellectual
values?'
and further down
4) 'Are there any intellectual values older than Socrates?'
(You'd better not bury questions halfway your postings if you
want them to focus a thread.)
My provisional answers:
ad 1) Only the smallest and the largest entities in the universe
are not both individual entities and part of collective systems.
The most relevant range for us is in between.
ad 2) I'm not at home in Jungian psychology, comparative
mythology and comparative religious studies. I prefer to develop
my own ideas, (on this list) to make only the links of my ideas
to Pirsig's ideas explicit and to let others do the hard work of
linking everything to the ideas of other writers.
ad 3) Once one experiences intellectual value (truth), it is
impossible not to find intellectual values that support
(conscious) actions by anyone. Even actions of fundamentalist
terrorists and policies of U.S. administration are consciously
motivated and therefore part of intellectual patterns of values.
They do of course contradict the intellectual values of other
intellectual patterns of values than those they are part of...
Static intellectual values are relative to the pattern they are
part of: their value is in essence the value of preserving or
reproducing the pattern. Only Dynamic Quality is absolute; only
Dynamic experience can be used to judge which intellectual
pattern of values is best... According to my experience the
intellectual pattern of values that justifies U.S. policies is
better than the intellectual pattern of values that justifies
fundamentalist terrorism, but neither is near the top of my
hierarchy of intellectual patterns of values.
I postpone your question 4) except for a provocative 'Yes, there
are! Read Lila!'.
It was YOU who wrote 2/2 16:03 -0700:
'the final goal is to distinguish between the 3rd and 4th levels,
but first things first. It seems there is very little agreement
about how to make such distinctions'. So why do you enter the
discussion about the distinction between the social and
intellectual level and when the birth of the intellectual level
should be dated when we don't agree yet about how to make such
distinctions in general?? If you don't want to make such
distinctions by distinguishing different types of static latches
(as I suggested), what else do you propose?
I found you response to my suggestion rather shallow:
'I don't see the difference between static latches and static
patterns. I think all things and beings are static latches, by
definition. If its not dead, extinct or otherwise dissolved, it
is statically latched. That's what static patterns are. That's
what it means to be preserved, to continue existing is to be
statically latched.'
If a pattern of value is statically latched, that (logically)
doesn't imply that it can be equated with its static latch. I'd
say that part a pattern is preserved/reproduced by a process
('things' doing 'things'). You can distinguish different types of
processes, different ways of preserving/reproducing a pattern of
values (e.g. copying DNA/proteins/organisms, copying
behavior/habits/cultural characteristics and copying
motives/ideas/knowledge).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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