Hey Bo,
BO
....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.
PIRSIG (from p177-179)
A conventional subject-object metaphysics uses the same four static
patterns as the Metaphysics of Quality, dividing them up into two groups of
two: inorganic-biological patterns called 'matter,' and social-intellectual
patterns called 'mind.' But this division is the source of the problem....
In a value centered Metaphysics of Quality the four sets of static
patterns are not isolated into separate compartments of mind and matter.
Matter is just a name for certain inorganic value patterns. Biological
patterns, social patterns, and intellectual patterns are supported by this
pattern of matter but are independent of it...
Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They
originate out of society, which originates out of biology which originates
out of inorganic nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind
thinks is as dominated by social patterns as social patterns as social
patterns are dominated by biological patterns as biological patterns are
dominated by inorganic patterns.
RICK
It is in this Quality sense in which the "human being as a source of
ideas" must be understood, and not in the sense of a materialist reduction.
And it is in this sense that we can see why intellect is a rational,
metaphysical basis for human rights and why it is relevant to the issue of
capital punishment.
Societies need people. People need oxygen. So to protect itself, a
moral social ethic would protect TREES, because they are the source of
oxygen. In this sense, sustaining society becomes a rational, metaphysical
basis for the protection of the environment (or at least trees). Now think
of 'ideas' as the 'oxygen' of the intellectual level and people as the
'trees'.
BO
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.
RICK
Resolving this ambiguity is important to understanding the MOQ as a
basis of human rights. The term "social value" is ambiguous because it
encompasses notions of both individuals (people) and collectives (giants).
The MOQ recognizes the Lockeian/Madisonian notion that society needs to
balance individual and collective values in order to thrive. And since the
collective is already so much more powerful than any individual, the
intellectual ethic favors the protection of 'individual' social patterns as
much as can be allowed without destroying the greater 'collective' social
patterns. This policy preserves both ideas and the social base.
Ask yourself, why "social value" is something frightening to intellect?
The question seems mysterious until we note the difference between
'individual' and 'collective' social patterns. Intellect is frightened by
collectives because they choke off the flow of ideas from individuals;
reducing intellect's air supply... so to speak.
BO
Are there any border up to which social value don't effect intellectual
value?
RICK
Every intra-social conflict may have SOME effect on intellect, however,
the effect won't always be appreciable (this is why Pirsig's capital
punishment example gets 'more complex' when he gets to intralevel
conflicts). From intellect's perspective, those intra-social conflicts
without an appreciable effect don't even exist (a thing that has no value
doesn't exist).
The trick is that morality is a really balance. Intellect wants all
appreciable conflicts settled in a way that would better Intellect (in favor
of individuals). Society wants those same conflicts to be settled in a way
that betters society (in favor of collectives). It is by virtue of the
conflict between these two competitors that evolution (and MOQ morality)
occurs.
If society wins every time, intellect dies from stagnation
in the flow of ideas. If intellect wins every time, society self-destructs
from over-dynamicism (taking intellect down with it). Only the societies
that can strike a balance will survive to evolve (survival of the best).
BO
...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...
RICK
Of course the values of the other levels change. The Metaphysics of
Quality is a value centered EVOLUTIONARY morality. Evolution requires
adaptation. Adaptation requires CHANGES to adapt to. Adaptation to dynamic
changes in static values is the ENGINE of the MOQ!
BO
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....
...I believe we mean the same. "Destruction" sounds too violent, while
"control" sounds too lenient? Couldn't we say controlled-destruction?
RICK
How about 'selection'? It incorporates both control and destruction, and
also has a nice Darwinian ring to it.
BO (from last time)
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(from last time)
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.
BO
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.
RICK
But Pirsig's point was that the Hippie's were WRONG. Dynamic Quality
wasn't telling them to be nude and promiscuous (and neither was intellect),
Biology was. They had mixed up biological quality with DQ and as a result
cast off BOTH intellect and society, which had left them with only two
choices: (1) biological quality (with it's nudity and promiscuity) or, (2)
Dynamic Quality itself (on which life cannot survive) See p348-349 for
Pirsig's full thoughts on the matter.
BO
In your view, what determines when it's proper to kill a "source of ideas"?
RICK
My own personal view? Necessity. Examples like self-defense (kill or be
killed) and defense of another (kill or else someone else will be killed)
jump to mind... To a lesser extent defense of home and property.
Pirsig's view seems to be that it is proper to execute the criminal if
the established social structure is threatened. I often wonder what he
would think of the legal principle which states that "a crime against one is
a crime against all".
BO
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.
RICK
Okay, in that "quality sense" I can go with you.
BO
Glad we finally agree.
RICK
Me too. I wonder what else we may agree on.
thanks for staying with me
rick
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