From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Oct 27 2002 - 20:00:33 GMT
Sam, Steve and all:
Sam agreed with Steve:
Although doubtless some would say I too have a poor grasp of the MoQ given
this campaign, I think you've understood it well. I particularly agree with
you when you say: "The four levels of Value (not values) are not types of
things but ways of valuing." I think that's very important (and I tried to
shape my level-four proposal according to that understanding in my most
recent substantial post).
DMB says: I think its safe to include consent of the governed to this
list...
"The MOQ says that what is meant by "human rights" is usually the moral code
of intellect vs. society, the moral right of intellect to be free of social
control. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, of travel, trial by jury,
habeas corpus, government by consent - these "human rights" are all
intellect vs. society issues. According to the MOQ these "human rights" have
not just a sentimental basis, but a rational, metaphysical basis. They are
essential to the evolution of a higher level of life from a lower level of
life. They are for real." page 307
It is true that each level represents a level of awareness, but Pirsig is
also talking about ontological reality. The MOQ paints them as one and the
same so that even something as mundane as a chair is composed of little
moral orders. He even claims that his MOQ is exhaustive, that everything in
the world can fit into it. Its about the real world...
"It was tempting to take all the moral conflicts of the world and, one by
one, see how they fit this kind of analysis, but Phaedrus realized that if
he started to get into that he would never finish. Wherever he looked,
whatever examples came to mind, he always seemed to be able to lay them out
within this framework, and the nature of the conflicts usually seemed to be
clearer when he did so." (page 161)
Sam said:
I think we're talking past each other again, as with the conservatism
thread. We each think our analysis includes the other's; to my mind the
bigger difference is that I'm not wanting you to stop arguing!
DMB says:
Who asked you to stop arguing? I think its fun, although I wish you'd
actually address my objections rather than just complain about them.
Sam asked:
One element from your posts: you said "Yes, wisdom is better than logic, but
illogical reasoning will give you an unwise conclusion every time."
How do you understand wisdom? How do you distinguish it from logical and
scientific reasoning?
DMB says:
Yea, that's more like it. Wisdom, to quote Ken Wilber, "means the BEST that
any era has to offer". In our own era, a very wise person would be fully
capable of logical and scientific reasoning, but also more than that. I
suppose it doesn't take very much wisdom to see this. In the MOQ, where we
are supposed to be in an intelllectual era, surely a wise person would have
integrated all four levels. The wisest are at the cutting edge of evolution,
the most advanced creatures. These include shamans, saints, sages and
various figures like that, depending on what era we're talking about. Which
brings me to another point...
There is usually quite a distance between wise guys and the average joe, and
overlooking this gap can lead to false conclusions about previous eras. I
think such distinctions might be relevant to your take on the Sophists and
Sophocles. I think its kind of cool that Pirsig and Wilber both describe an
evolutionary leap at about the same time in history...
"We just saw that in magical times, the most highly evolved mode was
generally shamanic. The shaman was the growing tip of conscoiusness
evolution. The magical shamanic mode was the dominant form of consciousness
for the largest period of humanity's stay on earth so far, reigning from
perhaps as early as 500,000 years BCE to around 7000 BCE, with its peak
period probably from around 50,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE. ... As the average,
collective mode of consciousness evolved from mythic to mental (beginning
around the sixth century BCE), the most advanced mode evolved from subtle to
causal, and the sage, more than the saint embodied this growing tip of
conscousness." Page 154 of INTEGRAL PSYCHOLOGY
This shift "from mythic to mental" occurs about the same time as Pirsig sees
that shift as one from social to intellectual. Surely they are talking about
the same thing. But also notice that a few individuals were more advanced
than that. Food for thought.
Thanks,
DMB
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 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:38:05 GMT