Glenn, Glove, Clark and all MOQers:
There have been several different threads discussed recently. Truman's
decision to drop the big one on Japan, the political implications of the
MOQ and the difference between social and intellectual values have all
been addressed, but in a scattered way. Clark brought one of my posts
over from the other forum, the one with the subject line "blindess to
the higher levels", and I've been chatting privately with Glenn and
Glove on the same general topic. Hopefully, this post will put the issue
back on the table so that every MOQer can get in on it.
What's difference between social and intellectual values? How can we
determine which is which in the real world? That's the question.
We discussed a very important MOQ axiom in the other forum last month;
Each of the levels is blind to the one(s) above it. Hunger doesn't care
about table manners and oxygen knows nothing about death. The principle
works at all levels of static patterns. But the purpose of this post is
to describe and explain that axiom only as it specifically relates to
the social level's blindness to intellectual values.
There is an interesting theory of Ideologies that seems to shed light on
this topic. (There are two sources to check, if you're interested;
Harold Walsby's "The Domain of Ideologies; a study of the Origin,
Development and Structure of Ideologies" and George Walford's
"Ideologies and their Funtions; a study in Systematic Ideology".) I
found a summary paper by Dr. Zvi Lamm of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem titled...
IDEOLOGIES IN A HIERARCHAL ORDER
Walsby says that there are 7 major ideologies. They are ordered
according to their historical sequence, which shows a progressive
evolution in time. They are centered around the progressive development
of human needs. Maslow's heirarchy of needs is more than just analogous
to Walsby's idea. You know how it goes, physical needs are first, then
saftey, security, love and belonging, self esteem and finally
self-actualization.
Walsby's hierarchy of ideologies, Maslow's hierarchy of needs and
Pirsig's Levels of static patterns all correspond in a certain respect.
Each of them insists that each step must be "mastered" before one can
successfully move on to the next. Lamm writes, "The individual who
identifies with the most recent of the principle ideologies thereby
identifies with man's most advanced needs, but in doing so DOES NOT
REJECT all the preceeding ideologies listed in the taxonomical order of
their appearance. He remains with them and they remain with him...The
ideologies of the hiest needs incorporate those of the basic needs."
Or as Walford put it "It is a functional necessity, the later phases
depend for their existence upon the continuing functional presence of
the earlier ones".
We could say the same kind of thing about the levels of static patterns.
There is no intellect without society, there is no pack without dogs,
there is no animal without atoms.
Basically, the hierarchy of ideologies looks like this...
protostatic = fascist
epistatic = conservative
parastatic = liberal
protodynamic = socialist
epidynamic = revolutionary
paradynamic = anarchist
Metadynamic = no ideology
The use of "static" and "dynamic" here is not the same as Pirsig's sense
of those words, but its not entirely alien to the MOQ either. In fact
the first three ideologies, the ones he calls "static", are markedly
different than the next three ideologies, which he says are "dynamic".
Dr Lamm says, "The Individual who upholds the static ideologies
identifies at varying degrees of intensiveness with his society as it
is, and is prepared to sacrifice any outside factor for it. These basic
identifications change direction in the shift from static to dynamic
ideologies." This shift to the more advanced ideologies is a change from
social to intellectual values. And of course all of this is about much
more than politics. An ideology in this sense is more like of world view
and a value system all rolled into one. It about where you're at, what
you value, who you are. Every act, in any sphere of life, will be
decisively influenced by your ideology.
So basically the three static ideologies are more or less associated
with social level values. This includes just about everybody, I suppose.
The first three cover everything from fascism to liberalism! The next
three ideologies are associated with intellectual values and it covers
everthing from radical reformers to revolutionary anarchists! The 7th,
Metadynamic ideology is a little closer to Pirsig's "dynamic", but it is
still just at the height of the intellectual level, where you're
interested in ideologies as a phenomenon, but don't uphold any
particular one them so much as the meaning of all of them put together.
Its about analysis and synthesis and freedom from structured ideologies
altogether.
And it worth noteing that education and intelligence are related to
these hierarchies, but it not really about how smart you are. Its what
you identify with and value as important. There can be intelligent
fascists and stupid anarchists. But its not too likely because there is
an increasing level of complexity in the hierarchy of ideologies. And
they also correspond to the level of needs as in Maslow's theory, which
brings me back to the main point.
The upholders of social level values are, by varying degrees,
anti-intellectual. And in a way it is simply due to the fact that
they're not there yet. Intellectuals are percieved as a threat to those
still trying to master more basic needs. "You can't eat books" "Pearls
before swine" "You've got to walk before you run" and "first things
first". Its common sense. Its not that social "thinkers" are stupid, its
simply that intellect is beyond their range of values. Intellect doesn't
matter to the starving, lonely and homeless.
DMB
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 - 16:03:14 BST