Hi all,
Sam said:
> I would rather the fourth level was described as 'individual'
Elliot:
As i understand it, Pirsig said the intellectual level began when the first
animal looked at the group and distinguished himself from it. "I am
different than you". Thus, when i hear intellectual level i think
individual. In buddhism it would probably be called the Wisdom level
(because that is the nature of the mind despite the winds of ingnorance),
Or "the mind of the sentiant being". Intellectual is indeed a weighted
word, but i dont think Pirsig ment to imply that men were of quality only
to the point that they had "intellectual" things to add to society (this
would be the social levels take on it though). Intellectual here means
something qualitatively different than the common usage, and i believe that
was indeed pirsigs intent.
As far as wether the list is complete or not... If we break human
freedoms into different categories such as speech and travle, than we
undermine TRUE human freedom. No list will ever capture what it is to be
free from domination, thus the list is only what from the infinite will
society actually let individuals have.
Erin said (acording to Platt):
the more we embrace a global
community the more individual freedom we have
Elliot:
Well, yes and no. If you mean global community in the hippy comunal "lets
all share and just get along" sense, than you are right. However, if you
mean that one country gets control of all the land and water on the earth,
and thus borders are abolished and people are all of the same nationality,
than i dissagree. That system would inherently impose broad restrictions
on individuals, and the most massive and impersonal beuracracy imaginable
would have to be contrived to administer it. The more people in a society,
the less responsive the society can be to each individual, and the broader
and less personal the social restrictions are (think difference in
administration of family and a large country, and what role size and
distance plays in this). Individual freedom lies in smaller comunities
where personal understanding (perception of local quality) can play more
into the decisions of the group (again, the legal system of a family and
of, say, america). So i guess i sorta agree with scott here.
Finally, erin said:
Individual morality benefits you directly and collective morality benefits
you indirectly
Elliot:
In collective morality, murder of individulas is acceptable for the good of
the whole. I say high quality individual morality on a large scale would
be much more benificial for individuals both directly and indirectly.
Broad collective morality is a substitute for individual morality.
Example, I'd rather someone treat me civilly because he or she feels that
they should, not because everyone else does. The differnce will be
apparent if the person is merly putting up with you because society says
they should or because they feel a personal moral responsibilty to promote
quality in their daily action.
These are ideals, and in actual practice perhaps erin is right. But as the
graffiti said on the streets of paris in '68, "Demand the impossible". I
cannot promote ideas i feel are of secondary quality.
Hope you find quality in your daily actions,
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 - 16:02:14 BST