Hi, gang.
On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, GLOVE wrote:
>hello everyone
>
>Donny wrote 10/28/98 at 1:56pm :
>
>Am I to interpret those of you who say society is of higher moral value than
>"intellecet" as meaning that we should not resort to rational, [relative]
>objectivity when setteling social debates? Should we insted resort just to
>social class? Force? I'm afraid you crowd are going to have a very hard
>time
>selling your version of the MoQ to the public, indeed.)
>
>Donny, hopefully none of my writings have inferred that social patterns of
>value are higher than intellectual patterns of value, for i agree with
>Pirsig. the Metaphysics of Quality gives us a device for seeing how these
>patterns interact with one another. because i say we NEED social patterns of
>value does in no way negate the need of intellectual freedom. if social
>patterns are disrupted by war or economic depression, intellectual patterns
>of value are disrupted as well.
I agree completley. One of my favorite statments made by the great
philosopher Wittgenstein was something he said during WWII: "It is gastly
that anybody could do philosphy during these times." Philosophy is a
comparativly unimportant, unserious, peace-time activity. Social defence
and stability is important bussiness. Biological stability is even more
serious -- more "real."
If you know the works of Doris Lessing, she is fond of writting
about how easy it is for even well educated men and women to revert to a
"primative," "Neandertha" moral/social possition. It's also the theam of
*Apocolyps Now*, and (from my generation) *Natural Born Killers*, and the
nightly news. (One of my favorite books has always been *Lord of the
Flys*)
>
>and Donny writes:
>
>But now, today, we live in more enlightened times, right? Because we hold
>that social statuss has no bareing on proof.
>
>Donny, i tend to agree with you to a point, and yet we most certainly do use
>social status as a means of 'proving' something. if we didnt, people wouldnt
>struggle for years to obtain advanced degrees, which i am sure you would
>agree with. it seems to me learning that knowledge is a social level pattern
>of value, while using what has been learned turns into an intellectual
>pattern of value.
I, again, agree completly. I was being somewhat ironic in the
statment you quoted above. For one thing: While the Victorian-Edwardian
society was distributed by heridetary Honor, our society is divided-up and
distributed along class lines based on "intellegence" -- it's been
blue-collor/white-collor; today it's knowledge-worker/laborer. There's
been a lot of writting lately about how we're creating an "intellectual
elete" as the ruling class of our global village.
But here's my point: While the Int. level values objectivity and
the independence of Truth from social class, this is really an *ideal* --
It's a statment of promise like the boy scout moto; not a report about
some facts of the world. The Int. level can never be trully free of the
social level because it grows out of this. Objectivity and the scientific
proof are valued only so long as we live in a society which supports these
views. If that society should cromble, should fall back into something
like the Victorian world... by-by IntPoVs. Joseph McCarthy's communist
witch-hunts from America's 50s was such a laps.
>best wishes to all,
>
>glove
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:38 BST