Hi all,
MARCO:
I've tried many times to write a coherent conclusion for this thread. The
only possible conclusion is that there is no agreement about the intellect's
"better".
Last suggestion, from Rog:
> 4th Principle: It is better to understand
The two mainstream positions seem to start from two different views on what
intellect is:
a) The "rationals" point to "law" making, understanding, thinking, reason,
science, rationality, objectivity, truth.....
I think the weak point is here that they must build a fifth level (IMO sort
of a platypus) and put there all what is not fitting with this form of
intellect: art, the MOQ, mysticism
ROG:
I don't believe that this criticism applies to my term. I certainly did not
intend to exclude art, mysticism or the MOQ. (And I find all the 5th level
ponderings unappealing). This isn't to say my suggestion was any good, just
that I don't believe it is guilty as charged.
M:
b) The "humanists" point to individual rights, self-awareness, ethics,
freedom, creativity
And the weak point here is easily come to the conclusion of a "psychiatric
isolation", where communication becomes impossible, and to a simplistic
"individual vs.society" view.
R:
Again, I would suggest understanding applies broadly to all these as well --
OK, REAL broadly ;^). furthermore, it avoids the isolation.
M:
I think Pirsig does not offer a clear solution as he himself has not found a
clear solution. Pirsig just says that the Hippies were "the moral movement"
in their attempt to surpass the dead-end social-intellectual conflict of the
XXth century rejecting both, and their conflict. But they have failed too.
Sadly, they could not find any viable solution. They had a right feeling
that this objective intellect is not good, while anyway realizing that going
back to the Victorian stage would be a nonsense. "The reason this movement
has been so hard to understand is that *understanding* itself, static
intellect, was its enemy". You see, according to Pirsig "understanding" is
the "static intellect". Maybe there's a bit of solution hidden here. Just
like socially free market is the social dynamism that should be preserved,
we should take care that the whole intellectual scene is not about
"understanding", that is the "static intellect".
R:
Now this takes my term head on, but I find the critique is changing all the
rules of the game. All the other principles point to the creation of the
dominant static patterns of that level. Mine does as well. But you are now
rejecting it based upon the dominance of Dynamic quality, of the immorality
of the static to the dynamic. If you are going to introduce this standard,
the other 3 principles fall as well, not just the final rung of the ladder.
Furthermore, the Pirsig quotes and hippy story are not meant to reject
*understanding* they are to point out that SOM intellect has a hole in it
that needs repair, and that hippies confused dynamic with biological. In
both cases, they did not *understand.* (Though to be fair, I am perturbed at
myself that I was unable to find the exact quote you provided). Pirsig is
praising the dynamic aspect of the hippies, but chastising their movement for
undermining the essential value patterns of both society and intellect
without replacing it with better, more dynamic patterns (and no, these terms
together are not an oxymoron).
M:
t happens that I fall in the "humanist" group. But not in the sense that
the individual should fight the social level. Just in the sense that even
before any science or truth I think that "Man is the Measure". Science and
truth and rationality and reason are moral only if they are in the service
of Man. The final chapters of Lila are all about the importance of
individuality. The basic role of contrarians. Madness as a solution more
than a problem itself. The Dharmakaya light, El Greco. Dhyana and vacation.
Mysticism. This is the free dynamic intellect that should be preserved. In
my opinion, only this dynamic intellect will find sooner or later a clear
static latch for the intellectual level. Until then, hoping that science,
thought or rationality can by themselves offer a better quality of life is a
chimera. They are surely part of the solution, but not The Solution.
R:
I am aware that you are attacking a list of solutions here as opposed to my
particular twist, but I would offer that my term is broad enough to cover
these (from a static values perspective). What my principle lacks is a
thorough explanation with caveats and addendums, but again, that is true of
all these simple, concise principles.
As a side note, I reject the notion that science has not contributed to the
quality of life. I agree with RMP that a science with morality would be
much, much better of course. I think Pirsig recognizes science and societies
contributions too, but that he perceived a backslide in the era that he wrote
the book. I think his statements on SAT, organized crime, ghetto size,
american economic vitality, crime rates etc are all clearly not deteriorating
any more, and most have improved dramatically since the book was written. He
projected off an unrepresentative short term trend.
As a final argument for my priniple, while looking for your quote, I found a
Pirsig quote which supports my terminology. "The cells Dynamically invented
animals to preserve and improve their situation. The animals Dynamically
invented societies, and societies Dynamically invented intellectual
*knowledge* for the same reasons."
My fourth principle is of high quality. I urge everyone to embrace it and
reject lesser principles. THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING!!!
Rog
(Taking himself WAY to seriously)
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 - 16:01:56 BST