hi, rick, you wrote:
I think most sociologists would say that societies are formed out of
people's
common "intellectual" ideals, not vice versa. If this is true, than maybe
the levels are in the wrong order. Maybe inorganic leads to biological
which gives rise to intellectual which gives rise to society.
According to Pirsig, society arises from the biological level to provide the
optimum conditions for animals to survive. to see society as metaphysical
component, making it one of the static levels, is one of the most original
thoughts in MOQ. in Lila, p. 355, Pirsig explains: "Only social patterns
can control biological patterns." it is society which gives rise to the
next level: intellect...which then tries to rebel against the very level
from which it arose. he continues by clarifying: "Intellect can support
static patterns of society without fear of domination by carefully
distinguishing those moral issues that are social-biological from those that
are intellectual-social and making sure there is no encroachment either
way."
the levels are in the right order for sure.
Lithien
http://members.tripod.com/~lithien/Lila2.html
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Budd <rmb29@cornell.edu>
To: moq_discuss@moq.org <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 1998 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: MD Re:Proof and the MOQ
> I offer a big thank you to Donny for designing a nice MoQ way of looking
>at this unsettleing situation. I have often felt that the "intellectual"
>is the most confusing level of the MoQ. It is relatively easy to see how
>inorganic/chemical components combine to create biology and how biological
>components(people) combine to create society. But if the "intellectual"
>level refers to any thought by any individual than it wouldn't arise from
>the social level, it would arise from the biological. Let's be careful not
>to confuse "IntPoV" with mere "intellegence".
> However, I do point out one minor point for Donny and maybe even for RMP.
>When Socrates drank the hemlock he wasn't doing it for the truth (IntPoV).
>He was doing it for the law(SocPoV). In the Phaedo he makes it quite clear
>that the reason he allows himself to be executed rather than to escape is
>because he has lived in Athens and obeyed its laws his whole life and now
>feels that it would be a violation of his social "contract" to skip out
>just because now the laws were against him.
> And now I have a side question concerning the Intellectual level. If the
>intellectual level represents the ideals and truths that a society holds in
>common and supports through their interaction, and this level arises out of
>the society, then what caused the society to form in the first place? I
>think most sociologists would say that societies are formed out of people's
>common "intellectual" ideals, not vice versa. If this is true, than maybe
>the levels are in the wrong order. Maybe inorganic leads to biological
>which gives rise to intellectual which gives rise to society. I don't
>know. Hmmmm.
>
>Rick
>
>
>At 12:50 PM 10/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
>> 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
>
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