Hi Rog,
ROG
> > 4th Principle: It is better to understand
M
> 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
Yet, it is really hard to apply "understanding" to the realms of arts and
mysticism. Also curiosity, that is fundamental to any scientific
high-quality challenge, is hard to be included into the same category as
understanding. It seems to me that art, curiosity and mysticism deal more
with emotions than with rationality. Curiosity, art as "high quality
endeavor", and rational understanding are complementary to science. Unless
we expand the term understanding and include into it also something like
the "emotional intelligence"...
>
> 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
ell --
> OK, REAL broadly ;^). furthermore, it avoids the isolation.
M
hmmmm... I'm not convinced that understanding include creativity. Of course,
we can understand that creativity is good, beautiful, useful.... but in the
quality event of creativity we are maybe a bit beyond understanding.
Pirsig about the Hippies:
> "The reason this movement
> has been so hard to understand is that *understanding* itself, static
> intellect, was its enemy".
M:
> 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.
M:
hmmm... the principles are about something that is "better" so they are
about a dynamic leap more than a static latch. The static latch, according
to Pirsig, comes later, with "laws". "Together is better than alone" is in
my intention primarily a dynamic creative intuition. Then will come habits
and laws for its consolidation. Of course, the static latch (the fact
that "together" works) proofs that the principle has been moral.
R:
> 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:
Exactly! The hole in understanding as intellect is that it is too static.
The "confusion" of the Hippies is that they have not found the Dynamic side
of intellect.
About the quote, it is in the famous chapter 24, page 346 in my edition,
just before he mentions Kerouak's "on the road".
> M:
> 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.
> 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."
M
Maybe we have just two different ideas about what understanding is. IMO
knowledge is more than understanding. To Know is a process in which
understanding is the last step. About science, I of course agree that it has
contributed to quality of life. It is science "by itself" that can't.
When science contributes to quality of life is, by definition, "a science
with morality".
Ciao,
Marco.
p.s.
I forgot to tell you my result was:
Economic Left/Right: -1.50
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -4.26
more or less in line with my result of last year.
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 - 16:01:57 BST