Hi Platt,
Just now I've realized my mail program did not deliver this one....
MARCO
> So, a consideration. For what I know, Germans have been very logic and
> rational inventing V2 rockets, jet airplanes, "enigma" code, color films
> and other technological things. And also organizing extermination camps.
> And wasn't Heisenberg a honored scientist in Germany during those times?
> So, how do we classify this utilization of rationality that was completely
> subjugated by 3rd level?
PLATT
We classify this utilization of rationality by Fascism as a case where
society, in conflict with intellect, won the battle. How? By appealing to
patriotism or at the point of gun or both. And this war (not a game) is
still going on today between the countries who believe in defending the
intellectual rights of free speech, assembly, travel, etc. against those
who would impose by terrorist acts the social authority of
fundamentalist Islam as practiced in pre-war Afghanistan.
M:
I agree. I agree also it's a war an not a game (see later)
M:
> Can we say that rationality is the tool intellect uses to "triumph over
> society"? No, rationality is NOT ENOUGH. Rationality has been invented by
> society, and it has been widely used at the social level, as well as
> science and technology and religion and art.
>
> (ch. 24)
>
> «The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an
> ultimate meaning of the universe [...] It's historical purpose has been to
> help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies».
P
True. But once intellect discovered that by observing and measuring the
data of experience that the secrets of nature heretofore hidden by a blanket
of socially correct religious dicta could be uncovered, the battle by intellect
against all forms of social smothering of the intellectual (scientific) "truth"
was joined. The potential of intellect to change the world for the better was
MORE THAN ENOUGH to triumph over static, stifling society. But the battle
continues to this day.
M
Still, it doesn't convince me. I'm not sure it is thanks to the concept of a scientific truth independent from society that intellect can emancipate itself from society. Actually, scientific truth does not apply very well to society and culture. So, when science discovered (created?) math, truth, logical consistency and so on, it has been able to dominate the (hmmm, forgive me) "objective realm" (inorganic and biological levels), and society has been happy for that. But when some intellectuals tried to apply the same methods to the (hmmmm, forgive me again) subjective realm (culture) in order to put society into a corner, well, they have managed to do a disaster.
The broader MOQ rationality can't claim that the intellectual level should prevail over society simply thanks to logical consistency or mathematical truth or things like that. It claims that intellect should prevail 'cause it is more moral. It is better. It can better respond to Quality. It can better create high quality static patterns from DQ. It can better help societies to solve their never ending conflicts. It can better solve the biological problems of human beings. It can better solve the biological problems of all this planet. It can better investigate universe, responding to an innate need of knowledge we all have. But to explain all that there is not a mathematical truth. There is a pragmatic argument: it works!
M
> Saying that rationality is the form of morality that gives intellect
> "control over society" and makes intellect "triumph over society" (wasn't
> it the matter of the discussion?) is changing the tool for the purpose.
> Human rights are the tools! They say " Dear society, you CAN'T completely
> force intellect to work for your own sake". Rationality is not a tool: it
> is the intellectual pattern that it is to be liberated!!! Because, in the
> hands of society, science is very dangerous.
P
You have it backwards. It was the "they" of individual intellectuals that
created human rights. To buy your line of reasoning is to propose a
higher level than intellect called the Human Rights level. Either that, or
you pull human rights out of thin air to "liberate" the intellectual pattern.
Just as biology freed itself from the physical and society freed itself
from biology, intellect freed itself from society by the actions of a few
brave men. But the battles between levels are not over. Far from it.
M
I don't think I need another higher level. IMO it works very well to state that few brave men invented human rights to free themselves. Something like a ransom. "Dear society, I can give you the power and wealth you need. But if you want that I work for you, well, let me free! "
That why it becomes a game. The game is between society and intellect within our western system. Those societies that understand the huge increased value that is possible to gain from a free intellect are stronger than those that don't. The west is stronger than terrorism because it is a society where intellect is more free and therefore glad to cooperate with the society. On the other hand, the enemy of today is a weaker society where intellect cooperates just for money, patriotism or even it is forced.
Why do you think all those European scientist escaped to USA in the 30's? Intellectual activities were more free there than here. Fermi went away from fascist Italy, and helped USA building the Bomb! This explains the force America has gained in the consequent years, and why it is the most powerful nation today.
M
> By the way, just rereading chapter 22 I've found this passage, that IMO
> closes the debate about where does Pirsig would classify art.
>
> «In the chaos of social patterns a wild new intellectual experimentation
> could now take place. Abstract art, discordant music, Freudian
> psychoanalysis... »
> It seems to me that art fits perfectly in the intellectual level, or not?
P
Abstract art and discordant music does. But is that what you consider
great art? I'm surprised that someone who has the statue of David in
his own back yard would think of "intellectualized" art as even faintly
comparable.
M
Pirsig does, apparently. Don't know what he has in his own back yard. Anyway he writes "new intellectual experimentation". Be sure that Raffaello, Michelangelo, Leonardo, Botticelli and co. were considered "new experimentators" when they invented Renaissance. From our point of view, they are classical, while abstract art is "New". Don't know if you will forgive me for what I'm going to write. I love the arts of Renaissance, but also I find that Andy Wharol is closer to my times. Of course, I'd not compare Wharol with Raffaello! Just, we can't know for sure in 300 years what will be kept of today's art.
P
Pirsig called human rights "a soup of sentiments" because the
intellectuals of the 60's, and indeed many of today's intellectuals, have
no idea how to justify those rights on a rational basis. They have no
rational metaphysics that tells them why freedom of speech, assembly,
travel, etc. are human rights. They just "feel" there ought to be
something called human rights and that you are supposed to cheer for
them without spelling out explicitly what those rights are or identifying
the foundation for their legitimacy. This "feeling" comes from a long
battle with religion and the "rational" evidence of how intellect, once
freed from the clutches of religion and totalitarianism has made the
world a better place. But, having no metaphysics that shows them why
the human rights Pirsig listed are high quality, intellectuals are
susceptible to all sorts of bogus "human rights" claims, like
redistribution of income and reparations for slavery which are based
on a social, not intellectual, values. Thus, we get irrational,
"sentimental" movements like the flower children and the
postmodernists.
M
Indeed. But, believe me, I'm not a cryptocommunist clintonian flowerchild postmodernist newager. (Nor a cryptofascist tatcherian traditionalist neovictorian, by the way). When I say human rights I have the MOQ supporting my views.
Bye,
Marco
Viva la Moral Revolution!
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 - 16:01:51 BST