Rasheed and Rick
You commented my Death Penalty input. First Rasheed who said:
> Bo,
> The only objection I have to your explanation is your disbelief in the
> intellect of a killer. True, it is likely that this person's intellect is
> low-Quality and would only serve to harm society, but as Pirsig says,
> "It's not nice guys who create social change." Social change is created
> by those who threaten society in their time period and only look good
> centuries later.
"The intellect of a killer"? I take it as meaning that there are persons with high
intellectual value and other with low. Hmmm. It does not make good sense to speak of
high/low inorganic or biological value (of a person), so why at the higher levels? Some
believe that a subjective-personal aspect entered existence along with the social level
and became full-fledged at Intellect, and it did, but not just personal, rather
personal/impersonal ...the value of distinguishing between PERSONAL and
IMPERSONAL! (subject/object).
> There are many examples . . . how about Gandhi? To the British he was a
> criminal, he broke laws, he fueled the conflict between peoples. Yet, had
> they eliminated this threat, his patterns would have died and we would not
> be where we are today.
As you know Rasheed everything hinges on this my rejecting the Q-intellect as a realm
of THINKING (ideas) and consequently the said justification for not killing don't jell with
me. It sounds too much like SOM's mind from matter (the body as a source of ideas)
Gandhi's ideas were of liberating India, and it was the intellect focus of the British (of
recognizing the impersonal idealism of his acts) that kept them from following the social
impulse of having him executed. Such a constraint weren't available/affordable to the
social-centered past.
> I know it's not the same comparing Gandhi to Ted
> Bundy, the example we've been using, but there still is the possibility of
> Ted Bundy creating intellectual patterns that will somehow benefit society
> . . . by killing him we are losing those patterns.
Bundy "ideas" are/were (is he alive?) devoid of any qualities that intellect would
recognize and use to override the more primitive (social) demand for revenge.
*********************
Rick wrote:
> All countries and states must be social-value focused to an extent
> or else they'll get gobbled up by the biological (destroying society and the
> ideas it supported). Also, all individuals are certainly NOT representatives of
> intellect, I believe Pirsig's argument is that they are all POTENTIAL
> representatives of intellect (even Ted Bundy MIGHT have a beneficial
> idea someday). Furthermore, even if you don't agree with that you must admit that
> every individual is a potential OBJECT of intellect... that is, even
> if Ted Bundy doesn't have a beneficial idea, perhaps somebody else
> would interview him and come up with a beneficial idea that they could
> not have had without Ted to study (this is how the FBI designed its
> serial killer profiling program).
The term "society" is awfully ambiguous in the MOQ, but I accept your first objection,
still the social core is so covered by intellectual values that it is hard to see. As you
know by now (!) I don't like the "idea-intellect", so the human being "as a source of
ideas" is mind out of matter ...in a quality guise.
Me from before:
> > [the MOQ's] "ethics" only says that the higher level is better, it is
> > not concerned with INTRA-level affairs. That much said, Pirsig says
> > that the death penalty issue is an INTER-level conflict; one of
> > Intellect vs Society...
> RICK
> No, he thinks it's both. Look at pages 184-185. He introduces the
> question of whether it's scientifically immoral for society to kill an
> individual in the 4th full paragraph on p184 (the one beginning, "Is
> it scientifically moral...etc.). In the next paragraph (the one
> beginning, "An evolutionary morality would at first...") he discuss
> the question in the context of INTER-level conflicts (that is, when
> society as a whole is threatened). In the following paragraph on p185
> (the one beginning, "When a society itself is not threatened..."), he
> discusses the question in the context of INTRA-level conflicts (which
> is why it's becomes more "complex").
About inter/intra-level you are right.
> RICK
> How could the "Intellect" of your theory form a "rational,
> metaphysical basis of human rights" if it approves of NOTHING social?
As said the term "society" is ambiguous "Social Value" is something terribly ancient
and frightening - seen from Intellect - and is tried subdued by introducing "human
rights" and the other intellectual values into the constitutions.
> Pirsig's
> "Intellect" is INDIFFERENT to social values beyond the extent to which
> they effect Intellect. Intellect disapproves of capital punishment
> because it destroys potential sources of ideas when those sources
> could be preserved through incarceration.
Are there any border up to which social value don't effect intellectual value? Not in my
view, to intellect the social level is everything despicable: subjective, personal,
sentimental, corrupt, things that must be ousted to create an orderly existence.
> > ...had it had its way all punishment would have been abolished!
> RICK
> I don't think this makes much sense. The abolishment of all Social
> punishment (law enforcement) would destroy society.
Huh? Isn't this exactly what LILA describes as the egg-heads' flirt with criminals which
undermined law and order? Now, Pirsig believes that the MOQ as a "high" intellectual
pattern will make intellect see this danger, but about this I am unsure. Look, Intellect is
supposed to be a STATIC pattern and as such its values are fixed. For example: can
the values of the lower 3 levels change? Obviously not, so why is Intellect an exception.
No, intellect is the a closed case the MOQ is something beyond intellect - a rebel
pattern.
> Intellect doesn't value the destruction of society any more than society values the
> destruction of biology.
Intellect sees controlled destruction (see below) of social value as "social"
improvement. But if these intellect-influenced-states (societies) reels due to lack of q-
social "props" those props re-emerges, they are older that intellect and can't be
destroyed.
> The higher level values complete CONTROL over
> the lower level, not the lower level's destruction.
I believe we mean the same. "Destruction" sounds too violent, while "control" sounds
too lenient? Couldn't we say controlled-destruction?
> > This goes for all levels, the upper one's purpose is to control
> > (the values of) the lower. Just one single example: Society's effort
> > to control biology's sexuality by dress rules for women and then Intellect - to
> > control Society - encouraging nudity and sexual liberty under its own banner
> > of freedom.
> RICK
> It sounds like your treading dangerously close to the Hippie's mistake
> of confusing Intellectual Quality with Biological Quality because both
> are at odds with Society.
I just point to that trend, which I believe is a rule. Last spotted in the MOQ - as
something beyond Intellect - seeking support from the social level.
> > IMO this is "Occam" explanation, while the "individual as a source
> > of ideas" is a bit contrived to say the least. For instance as Zach and Rick
> > points to: a killer's "ideas" might as well be of how to kill again and of
> > revenge and hatred. Another demonstration of the futility of the idea-intellect
> > definition.
> RICK
> Contrived? The 'individual as a source of ideas" is Pirsig's
> express answer to capital punishment. And it's as simple as saying, "don't kill
> people if you don't have to because you never know what ideas they may
> have or inspire."
In your view, what determines when it's proper to kill a "source of ideas"?
> It also makes much more sense than your explanation which would
> cast each level as suicidal, bent on the destruction of what lies
> beneath it. Higher level want CONTROL of lower levels, not the
> destruction of lower levels.
Before the MOQ there were SOM (or Intellect IMO) and my "destruction" must be seen
in the quality sense where no level really can destroy the level below - or itself - only
locally like a yeast colony depletes a local source of sugar and cause its own
destruction, but neither inorganic nor organic value is affected.
> BO
> ...What this means for the Death Penalty issue is that given the right
> circumstances existence may have to revert to social value's
> RICK
> Well, somehow, we agree again here. Given the right circumstances it
> becomes moral for society to forsake Intellectual concerns and protect
> itself.
Glad we finally agree.
Bo
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 - 16:01:59 BST