Hi Bo and Everyone:
Like many others I have the highest regard for our Norwegian friend,
Bo Skutvik, who, in a series of posts, has struggled to explain his view
of Pirsig's intellectual level. I say "struggled" because he has admitted
to a certain degree of frustration in attempting to make his position
clear. Likewise I admit to a certain degree of bafflement as to exactly
what Bo means when he calls the intellectual level SOL (Subject-
Object-Logic) or SOLAQI (Subject-Object-Logic-As-Quality-Intellect).
Part of my problem is that from one post to the next I forget what SOL
and SOLAQI stand for, a not uncommon problem with acronyms.
I think, however, with Bo's post of 10 March that I "get it." The intellectual
level is nothing more or less than our everyday assumption that the
world is divided into subjects and objects (mind and matter) with the
weight of sophisticated opinion settled on scientistic beliefs that all
arises from the material side of ledger, and that experiences not
attributable to some material basis are just human-induced illusions
fabricated to serve a variety of psychological needs. Thus, religion is
considered an opiate for the masses, morals arise from myths, and
values are matters of individual tastes. Objective, material, measurable
"facts" comprise hard "realities" and "truths" while subjective,
immaterial, language-embedded "ideas" make up malleable
"theories," "conjectures" and "opinions."
Such is the essence of the intellectual level's great divide. Aristotelian
logic, a body of rules for thinking that has proven immensely practical
over the centuries, can work both sides of the aisle, depending upon
the premises one starts with. Descartes, not Aristotle, is the primary
culprit in dividing experience into evanescent mind and tangible matter,
thus establishing Subject-Object Metaphysics as the intellectual
underpinning of the Western realm.
Given the success of the West in creating material well-being, its way
of viewing the world has proven its practical worth so that any other
way, especially that promoted by fundamentalist religion, appears to be
patently absurd. In other words, as Bo points out, S-O has VALUE, so
much so that Western languages are rife with dualistic S-O
assumptions that are almost impossible to see much less overcome,
the biggest one for MOQ purposes being the assumption that morality
reigns exclusively in the domain of personal relationships whose rules
change from group to group, depending on who holds the power to
punish at the moment. In the SOM objective world of hard fact, morals
are irrelevant, being matters more of the "heart" than "mind." No one
has ever seen a moral under a microscope. They are chimeras.
So what's the problem? Well, look around. Even allowing for our
natural propensity to emphasize controversy and strife, personal and
group conflicts, often rising to murderous levels, have marked
mankind's history from the beginning. In Rodney King's infamous
words, "Why can't we all get along?"
For a quick, simple, straightforward answer: because morals are up for
grabs. Whether between individuals, families, communities,
organizations or nations, what's right and what's wrong is infinitely
opinionated. What's right for the powerful is seen as wrong by the
weak. What's "fair" in the eyes of those making and enforcing the rules
is regarded by the ruled as "unfair." The "haves" want to keep what's
theirs; the "havenots" want a bigger piece of the pie.
So morals become weapons in the battle for a place in the sun. To
quote an old friend, "They use the morals to make someone else look
inferior and that way look better themselves. It doesn't matter what the
moral code is-religious morals, political morals, racist morals,
capitalist morals, feminist morals, hippie morals-they're all the same.
The moral codes change but the meanness and the egotism stay the
same."
How true. Moral arrogance knows no bounds. From parents to bosses
to priests to government leaders, everyone claims to know what's right.
Result: A sense of alienation, especially among the young who are
constantly battered by conflicting "musts" and "oughts" by authority
figures.
As a backlash we find some touting multiculturalism, saying it's wrong
to believe any moral code is "better" than any other, as if throwing
babies into bonfires is OK so long as your culture approves. "Who are
you to say what's better?" Indeed, who is anyone to say? The best
value is to have no values. The appeal of this call for a nihilistic
approach to morality is obvious. It says, "I can't be held responsible for
what I do. I can have the freedom of a child forever."
The presence of a vague, indeterminate, flexible morality in which every
man strives to be king and every nation tries to dominate makes for a
cauldron of clashing interests. The solid ground of reliable, impersonal
"truths" found in science, math and everyday "hard knocks" are
nowhere to be found in the moral realm. Ironically, the central role
played by "chance" in scientific explanations supports the contention
that moral codes are accidental and arbitrary. After all, if the universe
can suddenly pop into existence for no reason at all, surely morals can
do the same.
So what's to prevent everyone from acting as they damn well please?
Fear. What motivates men to restrict their impulses is fear of criticism,
banishment, punishment, pain and death. Such fears keep societies
functioning. Exploiting those fears brings dictators to power. Instilling
those fears in others by threats, insults and ridicule serve to control
deviant thoughts and behavior. Rational argument rarely works
because after some experience in getting battered around by parents,
teachers, bosses and politicians, one comes to realize the wisdom of
Ben Franklin's observation: "So convenient it is to be a rational
creature, since it enables us to find or make a reason for everything
one has a mind to do." Bo is right when he cites emotions, not reason,
as the central characteristic of the social level.
So what's to be done? With the present U.S. educational system
largely in the hands of the postmodern, political correctness crowd
who emphasize hurt feelings over serious study of the hard lessons of
history, not much I'm afraid. The single ray of hope is that since Sept.
11 academics behind ivied walls are becoming increasingly
marginalized because the thumping sound of bodies hitting the ground
at the base of the trade towers in Manhattan reminded everyone that
some things aren't a matter of opinion. If ZAMM came at the right time
in the hippie atmosphere of the 60's, then the MOQ in which "morality is
the primary reality of the world" may find its time after the sudden
appearance of a glaringly obvious "good vs. evil" worldwide conflict.
Thanks, Bo, for helping me clarify my thoughts.
Platt
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 - 16:01:58 BST