On 20 May 2002 at 22:50, sriram25@comcast.net wrote:
(to Hamish Muirhead who had written)
> >Doesn't escape the fact that some ideas acting at the intellectual
> >level are plain simply bloody stupid because of the negative
> >>feedback on the social levels. And I mean "bloody" in bodily fluid
> >sense.
Hi Sriram and Hamish.
First welcome (back) Hamish. The above was a bit vague, but if you
say what I believe you say I agree. In this country we have an
association, something to the effect of "Criminal Care in Freedom"
headed by a silly law professor who see all evil with "society", it
deserving whatever violation it receives...etc. It had its heyday back in
the seventies, but has luckily faded away.
> It's true that intellectual patterns, especially in a dominant
> position, can work to destroy the lower level social patterns. In
> Lila, Pirsig writes about how the current dominant "amoral" SOM
> intellectual patterns have taken the side of biology in the conflict
> of social patterns with biological patterns, and thus have caused
> tremendous social destruction.
Sriram, you are right, that part of LILA was what brought it so many
negative reviews from the egg-heads who took Pirsig to be a
reactionary.
> However, even so, social patterns have no right to repress
> intellectual patterns of any kind, even if they are "stupid." It is
> immoral for them to do so. It is probable that religious authorities
> of Galileo's time considered his ideas regarding the solar system to
> be "stupid."
You are right here too, but notice that this is seen in hindsight from a
MOQ perspective. The said times was religious-steeped and looked
upon Galileo's ideas a danger to the Church (God's World Order) which
proves that each Q-level is blind to any movement above itself.
Intellectual value was no "value" but a disturbance to the Social reality
of the sixteenth century.
> It is highly likely that many current day religious and
> government figures consider the Metaphysics of Quality to be "stupid."
No, no Sriram, it is not the social patterners (religious figures) who
consider the MOQ "stupid", it's Intellect who now consider it a
"disturbance" to the subject/object "world order". (why I have postulated
that the intellectual level is equal to the subject/object metaphysics, or -
better - q-intellect is the VALUE of the S/O divide. In this context the
MOQ is a "rebel" intellectual pattern not comfortable at home).
*) I have a Jehovah Witness "figure" visiting me and every time I bring
up the MOQ he shouts in agreement, but not for the right reasons. :-(
> The freedom of speech and other human rights were created to protect
> all intellectual patterns, both stupid and smart, from immoral
> repression by lower level social patterns. It's often the "stupid"
> intellectual patterns that turn out to be smart later.
OK, if human rights were created to protect... or are intellectual patterns
in their own rights is a question of definition, but as (I believe) Hamish
says, intellect is "from the level below" and can not destroy its social
base without jeopardizing itself, there are intellectual ideas that never
turns out smart.
> What will and should happen instead is that SOM - dominated
> intellectual patterns will be replaced by MOQ intellectual patterns
> because they are better, i.e. they have higher intellectual quality.
Now, this is a valid point and an interesting extrapolation. But there is
trouble with the "high/low intellectual value". For instance are there any
low/high social value? Not IMO, only simple and complex social
patterns. A tribe is social value in its purest form while a modern state is
so complex that the social component is almost invisible (under the
intellectual superstructure), and it is the very complexity that gives rise
to the next value growth. The MOQ is an extremely complex intellectual
pattern that threatens to "leave home".
> MOQ intellectual patterns can recognize the difference between
> conflicts of social patterns with biological patterns and conflicts of
> intellectual patterns with social patterns and will take the side of
> society in its effort to control and repress biology.
Dammit Sriram this is GOOD and something I too have speculated
about ... to Marco's great dismay (Hi!). Only that it is from the MOQ as
rebel-intellect pattern that we see these contexts. Parent-intellect is
blind to any view higher that itself.
And ...take the side of society! EXACTLY! (Something that Marco was
even more shaken by). But you are right Sriram. Look, Pirsig was/is
regarded a reactionary by the intellectuals that reviewed LILA - that's
the only vocabulary they know, intellect is blind to the MOQ because it's
not a GOOD intellectual idea, its a disturbance. Or seen SOLAQI-wise:
Intellect is SOM and as the MOQ is out to scrap SOM the two are
incompatible. In the MOQ it is reduced to a mere level and it wont have
that, it wants to retain its old position of REALITY itself.
> When this
> happens, the social destruction caused by the dominant SOM
> intellectual patterns will be alleviated.
SOM-intellectual patterns! Are there other Int.-patterns than S/O? But
otherwise SPOT ON! Now I am out of capital letters, adjectives and
exclamation marks. Thanks Sriram.
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 - 16:02:16 BST