PHELLOW FILOSOPHERS: Please accept my apology for using the word
"stupidity" in characterizing certain postitions posted here. The word
"daft" really means the same thing and, in spite of it's Monty
Pythonesque connotations, is really just as insulting. I didn't intend
to hurt anyone's feelings and regret my lack of tact. I hope you'll do
me a favor and look past the bouts of ugly-ness.
Now back to the issues... That is, the reason for reason, or as I like
to put it, the reason why intellectual level values should dominate
social values.
In chapter 13, immediately following Pirsig's explaination of the five
moral codes, there is a crucial passage that bears repeating. It begins
on page 163 of the bantam hardback edition.
PARAGRAPH ONE
"The structuring of morality into evolutionary levels suddenly gives
shape to all kinds of blurred and confused moral ideas that are floating
around in present cultural heritage. ...Like the stuff Rigel was
throwing at him this morning, the old Victorian morality. That was
entirely within that one code - the social code. Phaedrus thought that
code was good as far as it went, but it didn't really go anywhere. It
didn't know it's origins and it didn't know its own destinations, and
not knowing them it had to be exactly what it was; hopelessly static,
hopelessly STUPID, a form of evil in itself."
PARAGRAPH TWO
"EVIL... If he'd called it that one-hundred-and-fifty years ago he
might have gotten himself into some real trouble. People got mad back
then when you challanged their social institutions, and they tended to
take reprisals. He might have gotten himself ostracized as some kind of
a social menace. And if he'd said it six-hundred years ago he might have
been burned at the stake."
PARAGRAPH THREE
"But today it's hardly a risk. Its more of a cheap shot. Everybody
thinks those Victorian moral codes are stupid and evil, or old-fashioned
at least, except maybe a few religious fundamentalists and
ultra-right-wingers and ignorant uneducated people like that. That's why
Rigel's sermon this morning seemed so peculiar. Usually people like
Rigel do their sermonizing in favor of what ever is popular. That way
they're safe. Didn't he know all that stuff went out years ago? Where
was he dutring the revolution of the sixties?"
PARAGRAPH FOUR
"Where had he been during this whole century? That's what this whole
century's been about, this struggle between intellectual and social
patterns. That's the theme song of the twentieth century. Is society
going to dominate the intellect or is intellect going to dominate
society? ... That was the thing this evolutionary morality brought out
clearer than anything else."
I've numbered the paragraphs for easy reference but the quotes are
generally in tact and in order. It's right out of Lila. As you can see
in the first paragraph, Pirsig hardly pulls his punches any better than
I do. He says people like Rigel tend to defend a Victorian morality that
is "hopelessly stupid" and is "a form of evil in itself". And I think
he means that those values are evil from a intellectual perspective.
Obviously, these same social values control our biological values (vice)
and that's good according to the third moral code. But the fourth and
fifth moral codes see it as "a form of evil".
Calling the social morality "EVIL" would have gotten him ostrasized or
burned at the stake in the past. I think the second paragraph
underscores the evolutionary progress of the intellect. It seems clear
that the intellect's dissent from social values has become more
acceptable over time. It's assertion is met with less and less hostility
as history and evolution unfold. I think this helps explain why things
like slavery and genocide are less accpetable than they once were.
In paragraph three Pirsig gets as ugly as he wants to be, saying that
the Rigels of the world are ignorant uneducated fundamentalist
ultra-right wingers and that "everybody (else) thinks those Victorian
moral codes are stupid and evil". Imagine if I'd said that instead of
Pirsig. I'd have to send personal apologies along with flowers and
candy, if I'd been that harsh.
Almost of of time.... More directly to the point. Propaganda is a
social level phenomenon and it is used to maintain certain social
values. The writing of History is an academic, intellectual activity.
For a good explaination of the difference with regard to the atomic
bombing of Japan one can read "Judgement at the Smithsonian". It tells
the story of the battle between Historians and the veterans groups that
objected.
David B
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:07 BST