Jon and Platt,
Just leave it to me to nitpick every line
Jon said:
> Indeed, our founding fathers and the first few generations of leaders in
> the American government had a general aversion to the actual word
> "democracy" equating it with "mob rule" which they abhorred just as much
> as totalitarianism. I don't think the virtues we today commonly associate
> with the word came into vogue until Woodrow Wilson, which aligns nicely
> in Pirsig's timeframe of the Intellectual Level taking over.
Elliot:
Pirsig was, i believe, incorrect in his timeline. The social level is
still dominant and its greatest tool of domination is giving us reason to
think it were otherwise. By adopting minimal intellectual values, the
social level has made some consessions, which it is now strong enough to
afford without dammage to its own agenda, that keep intellect subserviant.
I think a good definition of dominance in the static level model is that
the dominant level is the one that determines the value structure. Thus we
see the dominant expression of the intellect today, science, is without a
value structure of its own. It follows a social agenda (and by science i
mean much more than e=mcc, rethoric, philosophology, etc all reflect the
"technological imperative", or societies agenda). Efficency is Priority
#1, reification and quantification are the tools that achieve this. Thus,
although the intellect level is fighting to gain control over the social
level, the social level around Wodrow Wilson has made some amazing
advances. Despite "intellectual values" being supported by the system,
education is still mostly indoctrination, production is mostly for economic
growth and technology is fulfilling a social agenda. Something like the
MoQ is needed for the value structure to really move into the intellectual
realm and make society subserviant.
And then Platt said:
In any event, if I read you correctly, we're of the same view, whether
preventing liberals from interfering with how we work or keeping them
out of our pockets.
Elliot:
Well idealy society wouldnt need to interfere with our pocet books, but im
not sure to what extent this will ever be possible (shoot for the moon
anyway). Intellect will always be based on society and some of its
constraints. It is immoral for society to limit man's free play of ideas
and search for peace of mind when it comes to production (in any sort of
economic, political or other way), but if society must take some cash
everynow and then to benifit other intellects (human beings), than that is
moral. The current system of taxation however does feed of individuals to
pursue its own agenda of domination and indoctrination, and that is infact
immoral (why tax the lowest %50, shouldnt our taxes be going towards
them?). I would gladly pay my taxes (and more when i could) if i knew the
money was going to help people rather than make nuclear weapons and
artificially support huge corporations. So i guess, for the moment, i am
in agreement with you, the current taxation system is immoral, but a moral
version is conceivable. And if work is seen as an end in itself (a marxian
idea prevelant in Pirsig's work), rather than a means to commodities, then
who really cares how much the Gov't takes aslong as you have your
fulfilling job, peace of mind, and enough cash to survive off of.
Elliot
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