Hello, I am new to this discussion group . sorry to bump in like this , but
I read your reaction and what I had to say about this comes down to the sam
I guess. I just don't know very well how this works though , so I send this
directly to you ;
Hello,
Let me introduce myself first. My name is Karl Sanders and I am living in
Belgium ( as some of you might know, a place with a few problems in the
social level right now ). I subscribed to this group last week and followed
the discussions a few days to get hold of the subjects. I only recently read
the works of Pirsig and they were a true revelation for me. I live an
intellectually unsatisfying life as a business manager. I have been
interested in filosophy, but when I started reading the classics, I always
felt that it was a waste of time because they were missing something
essential. Since Lila I know what they missed. it takes some time and effort
to learn to work with MOQ though and that is why I joined. Maybe it could be
of help that people like me, who are in everyday business become MOQ -
advocates ...?!
Now, my idea about those boys; couldn 't it just be that they were acting
according to social patterns of lower value ? I mean the values in the
social level are not all of the same quality, think about witch burning, in
the middle ages a socially accepted phenomenon , which has later been
regarded as of lower value ( with the development of te superior,
intellectual Q patterns ).
Poorly developed individuals or not well guided chidren have not developed
the intellectual values , permitting them to make distinction between social
patterns of low or high values. If such individuals are confronted with too
much violence on TV , in their mind the low value patterns can in exterme
cases like these take control. Which is what I think has happened and which
is why I am very careful with what my children watch on TV. We should be
aware of the fact , that the evolution towards SQ patterns of higher value
does not take place in a few years , it is an evolutionary process that will
go on for thousands of years and during this time, there can be regressions.
So it can happen that , while we discovered the MOQ and the evolution of SQ
towards more DQ, in our lifetime we might observe just the opposite. I
always try to think in both long-term as short term developments.
Karl
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Donald T Palmgren <lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
Aan: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Datum: maandag 26 oktober 1998 19:17
Onderwerp: Re: MD Re:Proof and the MOQ
> Mind if I but in?
>
>On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Kilian Betlach wrote:
>
>>Hi Lithien:
>>
>>> what confused me was that i thought their planning out an ambush would
>>> qualify as strategy which would be in the intellect province.
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>>>
>>
>>This is a hard question to answer, because it calls into question, (to a
>>certain extent) the nature of the human condition. Do humans have
>>instincts? If so, are they violent ones, as Freud contended? Most
>>predatory animals have the capacity to set up "ambushes" through
>>stalking of prey etc., but I doubt few would argue that animals are
>>capable of realzing the "intelectual" level of SQ. I suppose I would
>>say that the driving force, the inspiration so to speak, behind the
>>action existed on the biological level, but that the means with which it
>>was carried out were contained within the intellectual sphere. Can an
>>action exist on one or more levels simultaneously? Or can such an
>>activity, when disected, contain more than one level? Common sense says
>>"yes" but I'm not sure what this metaphysics would say.
>>
>>Kilian
>
> First, I don't think using stratagy to ambush someone counts as
>Intllectual value-rhythms. Pirsig (I think we've more-or-less established)
>says that the first Int. value pattern appeared when Socrates drank the
>hemlock -- this is thinking/"logic" used not for bilogical/survilve values
>or social/statuss values... this is using the old noodle out of a value
>for "the Truth" -- and, in LILA, he says that IntPoVs didn't fully form
>until 1918. I think we should keep stuff like that in mind because it
>keeps us from confusing IntPoVs w/ just "thinking."
> Clearly seting an ambush is a thougt-process. And it even involves
>a bit of "logic" (term used loosly here -- not to be confused w/ formal
>logic): "Hmmm... If I ambush my enimies w/ a gun I will be able to defeat
>them much easier." That's not hard to figure out. Even a (socially)
>primative homo-sapian can come up w/ -ambush- or -trap- or -weapon-. I
>don't think there's anything particuarly *intellectual* about that.
> I shy away from saying that a monkey using a rock to smash open a
>coconut is an example of Int. values. It's not. That's a
>highly-developed, sophisticated expression of bilogical value: Desire for
>food.
>
>Second point:
> There is another angle to examine this from. While those boys are
>acting against social values -- they are also acting out of some social
>values. The value of status or recognition... Remember, they didn't shoot
>those people for food or survivle... It wasn't their biological values
>which were threatened (survivle, procreation), and they weren't fighting
>for any intellectual values (the Truth!); it was their social selves
>which were in some way stressed to the breaking point. I know it sounds
>strange at first, but when looked at in a certain way, you can see that
>they were acting primarily on the social level when they attacked. A 13
>year old boy going on shooting spree isn't the same as thing as a bear
>attack. He's trying -- in some disturbed, "insane" way -- to improve his
>*social* sittuation... he's just using a very brutal, and socially
>undesierable (immoral) method to do so. Do you get what I'm saying?
> Murder is an act of insanity/evil. These are Social terms. The
>(negative) value of insanity/evil does not exist in the biological realm
>(whose negative values are death and not continuing the bloodline) nor at
>the intellectual level (whose negative values are falshood, unclearity,
>mere (pure) subjectivity...).
>
> TTFN (ta-ta for now)
> Donny
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:36 BST