Hi Platt
A great posting....I was with you until the last paragraph.... a hard lesson
for america...... there really is no evil, the problem seems to be that you
really believe your own countries hype....the cowboys don't really ride over
the hill to save the day
Rod
on 13/3/02 10:06 pm, Platt Holden at pholden@sc.rr.com wrote:
> 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
>
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