Hi Bo:
This seems to be my day for misinterpreting what others say. (I know
some would say that's every day.)
B:
> First:
>
> On 31 Aug you said that I had said
> > > The MOQ, like any metaphysics, is a map that resides at the
> > > intellectual level but at a place higher than the SOM map, enabling us
> > > to see SOM's shortcomings.
>
> and commented it this way:
> > Bo says the MOQ map is more encompassing and therefore better than
> > SOM. Good point. (Suggests to me that SOM is like a 1492 map of the
> > world compared to a modern MOQ map.)
>
> Where have you found this? God, did I ever say anything as counter to my
> impression of the MOQ? The notion of SOM an old map and the MOQ a new map,
> i.e: that intellectual patterns are maps of the real world is what I have
> opposed from the very beginning. Please don't spoil my frail reputation as
> an original thinker (wry smile).
P:
In my defense: on 29 Aug you wrote:
"The relationship between the MOQ and intellect can be discussed. It
may be seen in all kinds of positions, at least it is at intellect's 'upper'
fringe from where it is able to 'see' intellect as a static level."
P:
You have argued, rightly, that SOM dominates intellect's static level.
You have also agreed that the MOQ, like Pirsig says of metaphysics, is
a "menu" and a 'map' (recall the Mercator analogy). So I put 2 and 2
together and obviously came up up with 5. Perhaps you'll elucidate on
where I've gone wrong.
P:
> > Sound familiar--scientific intellect ill-equipped to control
> > society?
B:
> "Scientific-intellect"? OK, Intellect is most distinctly expressed through
> science, but there is only one intellectual level and as the value above
> Society it is the only one equipped to control society (social value).
Boy, have I been mistaken. All along I thought you identified the
intellectual level as SOLAQI (Subject/Object Logic as Quality Intellect).
And all along I thought Pirsig argued that SOLAQI was ill-equipped to
control society since it denies values. Where have gone wrong on this?
Turning to the war on terror, I quoted an article that I thought reflected
the MOQ position regarding terrorists:
The article:
> > You do not try to appease them, or persuade them, or
> > reason with them. You try, on the contrary, to outwit them, to
> > vanquish them, to kill them. You behave with them in the same manner that
> > you would deal with a fatal epidemic - you try to wipe it out.
P:
> > Here the connection to the MOQ should be transparent. But for those
> > who may have forgotten, here's the pertinent quote from LILA,
> > Chap.24:
>
> > "Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its
> > ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological
> > patterns with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys
> > germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself."
B:
> The above LILA quote is about the university professors who, in their
> effort to objectivise (read:excuse) the criminals, joined forces with
> biology and thus threatened the social order. Now, I believe that we have
> previously agreed on an intellect vs society interpretation of the
> development that climaxed on Sep.11, and you seem to agree with that, but
> to see the counter-strike as a society vs biology struggle isn't fully
> consistent?
As Pirsig wrote in Chap. 24:
"The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that
you can talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns cannot
directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can control
biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation between society
and biology is not words. The instrument of conversation between
society and biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his
gun."
Those who kill or threaten to kill are acting at the biological level and
must be treated as such. I hope you aren't joining some who excuse the
attack on American as somehow justified..
B:
> If we compare the two situations, the intellectuals are "the West" and
> radical Islam becomes the defenders of "social order". The terror attack is
> then to be compared with a situation if the campus society attacked the
> intellectuals! In the LILA quote the "biological behavior" that the
> intellectuals must find and destroy ...etc. is rather to be compared to the
> disorder that the Islamic fundamentalist fear that liberalism will release
> on THEM. But now, unless it's my turn to end up in a dispute with Platt,
> I'll better explain.
The terror attack cannot be compared to a "campus society" attack on
intellectuals. The proper comparison is "F-class people" attacking
society. This is not a war between competing social levels, but of the
social level (civilization) against barbarians who do not hesitate to use
biological behavior (murder, rape, pillaging) to attain their ends.
B:
> The above is the MOQ explanation, but neither party knows about that.
> The West sees a backward culture with some fanatics who have found an
> enemy in free trade and USA's military presence, and they in turn look upon
> the said "freedom" as an undermining of "Umma" (God's order) and the US
> bases a sacrilege.
Hear and heed the words of Bin Laden:
"Allah ordered us to purify Muslim land of all non-believers. We believe
that the biggest thieves in the world and the terrorists are Americans.
We are sure of Allah's victory and our victory against the Americans and
Jews as promised by the prophet of peace. We predict a black day for
America and the end of the United States as United States."
B:
> Back in the MOQ view the "war on terror" is a Western (US) retreat to the
>same (social) plane as the terrorists, but Intellect isn't far away (the
> rights of the prisoners at Guantanamo soon became an issue for instance).
> One may imagine an ideal situation where the West solely trusted
> Intellect's superiority, yet stopped imposing its "gospel" on cultures not
> ripe for them, but its own social "giant" must be appeased.
Back in the MOQ, "The instrument of conversation between society and
biology has always been a policeman or a soldier and his gun." To think
that defending ourselves after being attacked is somehow "imposing our
gospel" on others seems seems an odd twist of logic. To appease
those who have announced their intentions to destroy the West reminds
me of Europe's folly of the 1930's.
But since all views on this subject have pretty well been hashed out
here before, I doubt if anything will be gained by hashing it over again.
But if you'd help me understand where the MOQ fits into the intellectual
level as a menu, map, and metaphysics of reality I'd appreciate it. Do
you agree that the MOQ is a map? Do you agree that we experience
values which the MOQ divides into four value levels, the bottom two
corresponding to objective and the upper two corresponding to
subjective?
Platt
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST