Hello Bo,
>> With a free exchange of ideas, it is
>>intellectual quality that decides among conflicting sets.
>To judge requires a higher perspective IMO. It's biology that decides
>what inorganic stuff is good food (f.ex) and it's society that selects what
>organisms are good "citizens", and intellect that chooses among social
>patterns. So ...accordingly, it must be something "out of intellect" that
>can tell what are the best ideas.
There are definitely better and worse intellectual patterns and ideas and no
"higher" static pattern is necessary to distinguish among these. For a
simple example, let me make the following syllogistic argument: All men
wear hats; Socrates is a man; Therefore, Socrates does not wear a hat. You
would consider me foolish and idiotic for making such an argument, and
rightfully so, because it violates the rules of logic, a high quality
intellectual pattern of value. The conclusion drawn does not follow from
the premisses. It is an idea, but it is a very bad idea. A much better
idea would be to change the last part to read, therefore Socrates wears a
hat. This conclusion follows logically from the premisses and is therefore
better. It is not "true" in any real, objective sense, it is just better
intellectually. This is a very simple and obvious fallacy, but there are
much more subtle fallacies in logic that are all based on low intellectual
quality. Pirsig repeatedly mentions the "ad hominem" fallacy which means
"to the person" and which was used against him due to his earlier insanity.
In the notes to Lila's Child, he says logically it is irrelevant. If Joe
says the sun is shining and you argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi
or Joe is stupid, what does this tell us about the condition of the sun?
All the truths of mathematics are based on intellectual value. The idea
that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is equal to 180 degrees is
a good idea. It is much better than the conflicting idea that the sum of
the interior angles of a triangle equals 200 degrees or 0 degrees or
anything else. Given certain axioms and definitions made by Euclid, it can
be shown through logical reasoning that this is the case, and the only
reason it's accepted as true is because of it's intellectual quality. It is
not a "higher" pattern that "decides" that these are good intellectual
patterns, it is intellectual quality itself.
Similarly, both SOM and MOQ are intellectual patterns, and the MOQ is
better. This betterness is not as easy to show as the previous examples
here, but some of the reasons are that it explains more of the world and it
explains it better. It includes aspects of reality that were previously
excluded because they didn't "fit" into the metaphysical system. It
eliminates certain "platypi" that have never been explained well by SOM.
There are hundreds of other reasons why it's better which I'm sure you know
from reading and appreciating ZMM and Lila. The point is that a higher
static level is unnecessary for the MOQ to be a better system of ideas.
Regards,
-- Sriram
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 26, 2002 10:58 PM
Subject: MD Social repressions.
> On 24 May 2002 at 0:09, sriram25@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Hello Bo,
> snip...snip....
> > 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.
>
> Sriram and Group.
> Great reading this message of yours (I have changed the heading), my
> petty remarks are probably uncalled for, but the notion of SOM as "low
> intellect" and the MOQ as "high intellect" and the two conflicting don't
> jell with me. Conflicting, yes, but unto the degree of not being able to
> stay in the same "room".
>
> Compared to the other levels what is "conflicting patterns" for instance
> at the biological level? All life forms from bacteria upwards are in
> "conflict" in the sense of feeding, exploiting ...etc. but the species
are
> really dependent on each other on a greater scale. Germs the most
> necessary of them all. And the lower organisms are more pure
> biological value - stable for millions of years - than the higher that are
> prone to extinction. No, I only see a development towards greater
> complexity inside each level, the lower necessary building blocks for
> the higher.
>
> > With a free exchange of ideas, it is
> > intellectual quality that decides among conflicting sets.
>
> To judge requires a higher perspective IMO. It's biology that decides
> what inorganic stuff is good food (f.ex) and it's society that selects
what
> organisms are good "citizens", and intellect that chooses among social
> patterns. So ...accordingly, it must be something "out of intellect" that
> can tell what are the best ideas.
>
> > What's
> > important here is that there is no threat of social repression in this
> > conflict.
>
> No maybe not in the "shot at dawn" type, but social pressure has many
> subtler forms and is an immensely strong factor. This demonstrates
> intellect's social roots: Even if we try to act lofty and objective we are
> not impervious to what other people think.
>
> > 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.
>
> You are right, the "original" Intellect vs Society struggle - when social
> repression had biological means at its disposal (death) - is secured by
> the said freedoms, yet intellect can't rid itself of the its social roots.
>
> > 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.
>
> Right again, here the repression was very unsubtle.
>
> > 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.
>
> ... while it here had become more subtle, or "social"
>
> > 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.
>
> 100% agreement!
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree with all this, but you will notice that any repression of the MOQ
> from religious reasons these days will raise pained smiles, because
> religion is considered nil and void in our intellect-dominated societies,
> be it the USA or Norway. No, it's INTELLECT cum SOM that resists the
> MOQ.
>
> Notice also that whatever value strives to liberate itself from its parent
> is prone to the "root" effect. If the Quality Idea is something that wants
> to liberate itself from intellect, it will forever be intellect-marked.
It's
> these MOQ implications that I find so immensely powerful, they put
> everything in such a revealing light.
>
> > 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.
>
> He, he, about the JW, but as said, accusations of false belief hardly
> evoke more than wry smiles nowadays - more serious in Bruno's and
> Galileo's time. Sriram, you will see from my above comments that I
> want the intellectual level to be the subject-object divide itself (the
> VALUE of the S/O divide more correctly) and consequently the MOQ is
> an intellectual pattern that it no longer can "live with its parents".
This I
> have called the SOLAQI (subject-object logic as q-intellect) in case you
> have wondered.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> 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