Dear Bo,
I indeed did not recognize the reference to Sherlock Holmes in 'that's
elementary Dr. Nusselder', but my reaction would have been the same if I
had. I DID recognize the patronizing attitude Sherlock Holmes displays
towards his aide Watson. There may after all be a little bit of truth in
Squonk's criticism of you...
So I repeat the question whether according to you my request to NOT
misrepresent my ideas by telling that they leave no room for a social level
merits a patronizing reaction (against the background of the quotes from you
which I provided 8/9 0:00 +0200).
It's a pity that you nail me on the use of SOM as an example of an
intellectual pattern of values. I made a mistake by using this as an example
(from your point of view, not mine, but I should have foreseen it). Couldn't
you see that it was just an example? The question essentially was:
'If an intellectual pattern of values BOTH serves a parent social pattern of
values AND serves purposes of its own, does it then belong to the social
level or to the intellectual level?!?'
Let's take another example, from the quote from 'Lila' chapter 30 where
Pirsig dates the start of the intellectual level 'maybe fifty or one hundred
thousand years' back:
'In cultures without books ritual seems to be a public library for teaching
the young and preserving common values and information.
These rituals may be the connecting link between the social and intellectual
levels of evolution. One can imagine primitive song-rituals and
dance-rituals associated with certain cosmology stories, myths, which
generated the first primitive religions. From these the first intellectual
truths could have been derived. ... principles emerge from ritual'.
Sure, these rituals and connected intellectual truths serve social patterns
of values. But by enabling the storage of 'knowledge' they also enable the
cumulation of intellectual values, the evoking of intellectual
reality/experience, which in itself has no social value and is therefore a
'purpose of its own' of religion understood as an intellectual pattern of
values.
Another example of an intellectual pattern of values might be 'science'
itself, the endeavor to be 'objective' and to uncover 'truth'. A clear
example of a pattern of values that has gone off on purposes of its own
('objectivity' and 'truth'), but also -I think- a pattern of values that
serves the social interests of the group/profession/society of scientists,
by protecting them against other social interest groups (the state,
commercial interests etc.). You tend to see the potential clash of
(according to me social) interests which 'trying to be scientific' prevents
as a defense of intellectual values against social values. Don't you agree
however that the scientists not only defend 'truth', but also their salaries
(which would be lower if they are just seen as aides of governement or
industry or -in the former Soviet-Union- of the labor class...) and the
social status of their public statements?
Is my question -with these examples- still meaningless to you?
I guess that from your point of view you would have to say that an
intellectual pattern of values like 'primitive religion' in the first
example PREDOMINANTLY serves social patterns of values and only MARGINALLY
purposes of its own and is therefore still part of the social level. An
intellectual pattern of values like 'science' in the second example on the
other hand PREDOMINANTLY serves 'own purposes' and only MARGINALLY social
patterns of values and is therefore part of the intellectual level. The
point in time where you deem the intellectual level to have started (when
some intellectual patterns of values have gone off serving MORE purposes of
their own than social purposes) then becomes the result of abitrary
judgements, however. You may suggest the death of Socrates, a Chinese
philosopher may suggest an event in Chinese history we are not familiar
with, Jews and Islamites may dig up notable figures from their history who
defended their ideas against political pressures at a personal costs etc.
We may seem to stress different aspects of the MoQ (and corresponding 'Lila'
quotes).
You wrote 10/4 9:46 +0200:
'I have chosen to focus on the part where Pirsig speaks about each level
starting as a pattern of the lower "going off on a purpose of its own",
which I find more true moqish than the hardware/software analogy.'
You wrote 2/9 8:08 +0200:
'To me this aspects of the MOQ is part and parcel of it.'
in reply to my:
'I think Pirsig's idea of "intellect" trying to dominate "society",
"society" trying to dominate "biology" etc. was not a very helpful one and I
am trying to do away with it in my MoQ.'
We cannot (yet we can, but we should not) deny each other the right to
create our own Quality Metaphysics (or different interpretations of the
MoQ). If we can at least agree that both of us are proposing a QM that has
at least some value (and more value than SOM), could we then proceed to
discussing the question which one has more value?
That requires an ability to faithfully represent each others' points of view
... or we can endlessly go on haggling about minor misunderstandings.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 - 16:06:31 BST