On 24 Apr 2002 at 13:52, ehallmark@Macalester.edu wrote:
> Elliot:
> Why is the intellectual level the highest? I think Pirsig's idea of
> limited levels and absolute superiority are dubious.
Hi Elliot
In a posting frenzy I'll try to address this post too. OK, first about the "limited levels"
issue. This is up till now. The MOQ is open-ended at the top and a 5th level has already
been discussed .... there once was a participant ("Quantonic" site's Doug Renselle) who
was very keen on a quantum level (he called) below the inorganic.
> The social level
> percieves the intellectual and biological levels to be inferior and
> thus fights against them. it percieves its self superior.
In a sense you are right, but a few preliminaries. The social LEVEL doesn't perceive
the intellectual LEVEL, no level perceives any development above itself except as
restraints on own value. Downwards is sees no value just evil. Hold your fire and let me
explain. To biology any social restraint is a pest (this only valid among humans because
of our strong social reality, an animal copulates and eats with no shame) yet, when
horny or starving also a human being is (totally) focussed on the biological level and
feel it a pest to abstain from ..whatever ..its body craves. Conclusion: the level in focus
is "superior". (the "inferiority" below is also important but let it rest)
> Obviously
> we as representative of the intellectual level consider ourselves to
> be superior but to say that this is absoultly true beyond the
> intellectual level is assuming a definition of superiority and
> progress that is absolute.
"As representatives of the intellectual level ...". As said we are (of) all levels and the
intellectual focus is not THAT firm. As demonstrated in the Palestine/Israel debate
social value lurks beneath and - as said - bodily "needs" easily sends focus another
notch down, but OK, those who (usually) have all bodily needs met and social security
can act as if intellect is the natural viewpoint ...and from there intellectual values are
superior.
But you doubt the definition of superiority and progress. Well, Elliot, it's a MOQ
postulate that everything is Quality (value) and that there is a value increase by the
levels, and as long as we discuss the MOQ that can hardly be questioned, because
there are no levels outside the MOQ inorganic matter, biology, society and intellect
has a totally different meaning in the usual (SOM) context.
> The patterns are what they are, i say, and
> are not superior to eachother. how would one consider our society
> more significant than the workings of our solar system (the socciety
> of planets)?
I don't know if you would appreciate an existence where the biological level was top
notch - "the law of the jungle". Eat or be eaten. OK, an antelope of the Sengregeti
plains with a lion on its heels knows no other value - nor does "the solar system" know
no other value than the inorganic, but WE know.
> However, for change to occur, the levels must consider eachother
> superior inorder to try to dominate.
This is true. No level would develop to the degree of becoming the "host" for a new
level hadn't it striven to dominate, but the very domination brings the seed of change.
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 - 16:02:12 BST