Hello, all.
Gene Kofman wrote:
> We could try to decide which of the two societies: Japanese or US was more
> supportive for the Intellectual values (freedom of speech, ideas, and
> individual choices, strength of democratic institutions ...) at the time of
> the bomb drop. IMO, US society was more conducive to the Intellect at the
> time.
>
I could make a case that the Japanese system was actually superior to that of the US. I wouldn't necessarily believe it myself - but still. The problem I'm having is that the MOQ works really well for the individual. The various levels can be realized in each of us.
It seems to work pretty well within homogenous social systems. You'd be hard-pressed, I think, to make a case for Marxism/communism over capitalism/republicanism. They are derived from the same basic Western (modified Judeo-Christian/Moslem) value system.
To me, the breakdown comes when we attempt to reconcile moral differences between heterogenous cultures.
> I had written:
>
> >That's the big problem! The Intellectual level is currently interfering
> with the
> >Social level - at least here in America. I can't speak for Europe or the
> rest of
> >the world.
>
>
>>Walter Balestra wrote:
> Can you explain what you mean by this, I'm not an American :-)
>
Actually Pirsig, in *Lila*, outlined the disruption of the Social level by the Intellectual level much better than I can in an e-mail. The rapid destruction of the social structure has led to a decline in education, an erosion of morals and a loss of community here in the US. In the past, societ was
able to tolerate and correct for some deviation of individuals because the community was able to enforce standards of behavior. Now, that authority is all but usurped and there is no replacement for it.
garrett merriam wrote:
> But in chapter 29 of Lila, Praedrus states "The idea that satisfaction
> alone
> is the test of ANYTHING is very dangerous, according to the metaphysics of
> quality." (my italics)
>
> Is this just the result of the MoQ developing to a point that it
> contradicts
> the rudamentary statment made in ZMM? Am I overlooking some piece of
> contextual information that disolves the apparent contradiction? Has
> anyone
> else noticed this before? Does anyone have any thoughts? Help me out
> here.
>
Different contexts. There is no contradiction. The first passage decribes a process of interaction with the machine that assumes the mechanic has the proper value for the machine. It is impossible to be satisfied with that motorcycle if you don't know that what you did was correct.
Scenario 2. A schoolchild may be satisfied with less than his best effort in class if he is allowed to satisfy a more immediately gratifying, to him, desire. It is the job of the society, through its agents, to attempt to steer the student toward more socially valuable goals. Until the child can be
firmly grounded in social values , he cannot operate on the Intellectual level.
drose
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