Hello Bo,
>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. :-(
It's absolutely correct that modern intellectual opposition to the MOQ is
mainly coming from dominant SOM-intellectual patterns that consider it a
"disturbance." What must be noted, however, is that these are conflicting
intellectual patterns, and due to the fact that the MOQ is better, it will
eventually become dominant and replace the inferior SOM-intellectual
patterns. With a free exchange of ideas, it is intellectual quality that
decides among conflicting sets. What's important here is that there is no
threat of social repression in this conflict. The MOQ makes clear that it
would be immoral for social patterns to repress either of these conflicting
intellectual patterns or any other ideas. The point that was being made was
that the freedom that these intellectual patterns have from the threat of
repression by lower level social patterns is due to such rights as freedom
of speech.
This was not always the case, and may still not be the case in some
cultures. The ideas of Galileo, Hobbes, Spinoza, and many other Renaissance
philosophers were repressed by the lower level social patterns, and this was
immoral. Galileo was forced to recant on threat of torture by the
Inquisition. Hobbes, after publication of his Leviathan, was subjected to a
heresy trial in England, where his ideas were attacked as "atheistic,"
"Jewish," and "heretical" and censored. The establishment of human rights
such as freedom of speech was a moral step to protect intellectual patterns,
even "amoral" SOM-intellectual patterns, from this type of degeneracy from
society. Just as social patterns have a moral right and obligation to
protect itself from repression by lower level biological patterns by means
of the law, police, guns, the military, etc., intellectual patterns also
have a moral right and obligation to protect itself from repression by lower
level social patterns. It does this by establishing rights such as the Bill
of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. This is why that although many
religious figures of the current day undoubtedly think the MOQ to be
"stupid," and possibly also "atheistic," "Jewish," and "heretical," they are
unable to repress or censor the dissemination of these ideas, at least in
cultures where intellectual patterns dominate social patterns, unlike in the
past before the moral rights of intellectual patterns were established as
strongly. Pirsig is not being threatened with torture, imprisonment, or
censorship for promoting such "heresy", at least here in America. The
opposition that is coming from static intellectual forces that was referred
to earlier will be overcome in time due to the betterness of the MOQ.
Bo, in contrast with your somewhat enlightened Jehovah's Witness friend, I
have a couple of Christian Fundamentalist friends who are opposed to the MOQ
because they think it promotes Buddhism, and other "false" and "heathen"
religions in opposition to the only real "truth" which is the words of
Christ as revealed in the New Testament. Although I disagree with their
sentiments, I am thankful that in modern America I am free to continue
advocating this system that supposedly promotes Buddhism and other "false"
ideas without being threatened by the authorities of their church.
Regards,
-- Sriram
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2002 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: MD Pim Fortuyn
> 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
>
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