Lithien-
When I was playing with the idea of intellect arising from biology it was a
primarily a result of the conversation about the shootings (you know the
one). I was trying to work around the distinction between an individual's
intelligence (which comes from the brain) and the "Intellectual" level of
MoQ. After all, it hardly takes a society to conceive of an ambush.
However, the problem was "solved" for me by Donny in a post about a week
ago which for some reason I'm having trouble locating. I have no
outstanding problems with the arrangement of the levels of the MoQ.
These days I'm thinking about a new topic (I am interested in Morality as
the new topic of the month but it's so huge it would take a book, like LILA
to even begin to cover it). What I'm thinking about now is when and how
members of our society are inducted into SOM. I remember someone making a
post about rearranging an encyclopedia and planning a school curriculum
around the ideas of the MoQ. After reading this I started wondering where
exactly in early education the ideas of SOM are first introduced. I mean,
obviously there was no day when you came into school and the teacher said,
"Okay class today were going to learn about subject/object metaphysics and
why you're an isolated observer of the world around you." Sure there were
some lesson about scientific method, but the method is just as compatible
with the MoQ as it is with SOM.
Rick
At 06:53 PM 10/28/98 -0500, you wrote:
>hi, richard, you said:
>
>I still regard ZAMM as the far more impressive and important
>work (despite what RMP himself thinks). Maybe because ZAMM simply points
>you in a direction that LILA tries to drag you in.
>
>my comment:
>
>i will share with you my reason for preferring Lila. instead of feeling
>"dragged", i had a very spontaneous but profound reality shift at the end of
>the book. it was as if my perception of the world had changed so
>dramatically that i was left disoriented and a bit unsteady on my feet. to
>realize SOM was an eye opener. so in that sense i prefer Lila over ZaMM.
>but, you couldnt have the second without the first. ZaMM explored the limits
>of sanity and took us on a journey of discovery...plus it gave us Quality.
>Lila, however, places Quality into a scheme of things. In Lila, Pirsig
>gives us MOQ and DQ and SOM. he applies what he just presented in ZaMM.
>that is why for me it has more "value".
>
>you also said:
>
>So why doesn't "intellectual" come from
>"biological"? I would very much like to be corrected on this point. I
>hate thinking that Pirsig may have something wrong.
>
>my response:
>
>this is the way i see MOQ: each of the levels gives rise to a more valuable
>one. the inorganic develops into the biological...the biological into
>society because this will ensure the survival of greater numbers*...and with
>the leisure that comes from being safe, well-fed, and acculturated...society
>fosters the intellect. each of the previous levels tries to swallow the
>next one back to their original state, and therefore that level is at odds
>with its precedent one. the one thing they all have in common is Freedom
>which is the greatest good. all the levels strive for freedom from the
>previous one.
>
>*animals like ants, monkeys, bees have highly developed social systems but
>you would hardly characterize them as being intellectual. i think that may
>be the difference between the way you see society and Pirsig does.
>
>what do you think?
>
>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 8:55 PM
>Subject: MD Society and Intellect
>
>
>>For Lithien-
>>Once again I appreciate you taking the time to explain some points to me I
>>may or may not be fuzzy on. I've read ZAMM over ten times and LILA about
>>six and so far I still regard ZAMM as the far more impressive and important
>>work (despite what RMP himself thinks). Maybe because ZAMM simply points
>>you in a direction that LILA tries to drag you in. I really loved ZAMM for
>>not trying to "say" it, if you know what I mean. I sort of resented LILA
>>for its turn around of attitude. Not that there isn't a wealth of great
>>ideas in LILA, I just don't think they're quite as well thought out or well
>>developed (I know this attitude isn't going to win me any friends here, but
>>hey, popularity isn't necessarily Quality, right?). Anyway...
>>
>>Perhaps I miss phrased what I was asking before. Let's try it this way...
>>Individuals, not societies, are the source of ideas. Societies may
>>eventually grow to embody and value those ideas, but they start with a
>>person, be it Buddha or Jesus or Bodhi Dharma or Plato or Robert M. Pirsig.
>> In fact you could use Pirsig's description of the formation of common
>>sense from ZAMM to explain how these values are formed: "We see what we see
>>because these ghosts show it to us, ghosts of Moses and Christ and the
>>Buddha, and Plato, and Descartes and Rousseau and Jefferson and Lincoln, on
>>and on and on..." Societies may seize on these ideas and combine them, but
>>they originate from individuals. So why doesn't "intellectual" come from
>>"biological"? I would very much like to be corrected on this point. I
>>hate thinking that Pirsig may have something wrong. His ideas have changed
>>the way I see everything and I want nothing more than to understand them as
>>completely as possible.
>>
>>Rick
>>
>>
>>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