David B replies to Patt's response....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Platt Holden [SMTP:pholden5@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 1999 12:22 PM
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
> Subject: Re: MD Blindness spillover
>
> Hi David B, Ken and Group:
>
> If Harold Walsby is representative of the intellectual level, give me
> the social level any day.
>
> According to Walsby's hierarchy of ideologies as presented by
> David B., to attain the state of having no ideology is to attain
> intellectual nirvana.
>
> But, Walsby's hierarchy contains an obvious self-contradiction
> which destroys it. To have no ideology is an ideology. His hierarchy
> self destructs.
>
[David Buchanan] I honestly don't see how its
self-contradictory to think beyond the bounds of ideology. Should we
assume that "intellectual nirvana" is a phrase you invented merely to
mock me or is there some real reason we ought to object to increasing
one's knowledge? I think the danger lies in the opposite direction. And
doesn't the MOQ say that we are free to the extent that we are free from
static patterns. And aren't these ideologies just different sets of
static pattterns? We're supposed to try and get free of such limitation
in favor of the Dyanmic, no?
> Similar sorts of intellectual charlatanism can easily be found
> among the so-called intelligentsia who are forever spouting self-
> contradictory nonsense such as environmentalists who prattle
> about all life forms having equal value, a qualitative distinction
> that
> denies all qualitative distinctions, or the multiculturalists who
> intone
> that we should respect all perspectives except (of course) any
> perspective that contradicts their's.
>
[David Buchanan] You don't have any good reason to invent
sinister motives and then ascribe them to people you've never met. Your
reasoning is utterly specious here. Enviromentalism and multiculturalism
have nothing to do with the dull-witted and hypocritical straw men you
attack, but you may be on to something. Perhaps you could locate those
causes on the hierarchy of ideologies and we could get an idea about how
"evolutionary status" such views. Or are you just cleverly and
ironically demonstrating what an anti-intellectual philosopher looks
like?
> Pirsig warns us against over indulgence in intellectualism. You'll
> recall the many words he spends condemning "objective"
> anthropology as practiced by Franz Boas and his acolytes.
> Walsby may or may not be an anthropologist (David B. doesn't
> say), but his work comes across suspiciously like Pirsig's
> comment in Lila, Chap. 22:
>
> "An American anthropologist could no more embrace nonobjectivity
> than a Stalinist bureaucrat could play the stock market. And for the
> same kind of ideological, conformist reasons."
>
[David Buchanan] Isn't Pirsig talking about the same thing
here? I mean that's the point, freedom from conformist ideologies is a
good thing, right? And I think its wrong to characterize Pirsig's
criticism of the intellect as a warning against "over indulgence".
You're not suggesting that we ought to fear thoughts that are too clear,
too precise or too informed, are you? You're not advocating ignorance as
a desired state are you? Pirsig's warnings are about scientific
objectivity, SOM and other flaws in the intellect, not the intellecual
level itself.
> In Walsby's theory I hear an ideological ax being ground--the
> superiority of intellectuals who say they are above all ideologies but
>
> howl like stuck pigs when their own pet ideologies are challenged.
> Never underestimate the vitriol of intellectual caught in a faulty
> assumption or self-contradiction.
>
[David Buchanan] This is pure speculation and insult. You say
nothin at all about the ideas or principles at issue. Instead you just
demonstrate a blanket condemnation of "intellectuals" in general. How
about a little less attitude and a little more substance. Why be so
mean? And who, my friend, is howling like a stuck pig?
> Finally, to David B. who staunchly defends the proposition that
> intellectuals should rule society, the following reminder of
> intellect's
> fatal flaw seems appropriate. From Lila, Chap. 22:
>
> "Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of
> Quality supports this dominance of intellect over society. It says
> intellect is a higher level of evolution than society; therefore, it
> is a
> more moral level than society. It is better for an idea to destroy a
> society than it is for a society to destroy an idea. But having said
> this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to say that science, the
> intellectual pattern that has been appointed to take over society,
> has a defect in it. The defect is that subject-object science has no
> provision for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned with
> facts. Morals have no objective reality. You can look through a
> microscope or telescope or oscilloscope for the rest of your life and
> you will never find a single moral. There aren't any there. They are
> all in your head. They exist only in your imagination.
> "From the perspective of a subject-object science, the world is a
> completely purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in
> anything. Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just
> functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with
> being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with
> suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally wrong
> because there are no morals, just functions.
> "Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time
> in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to run
> society with? As far as Phaedrus knew, that question has never
> been successfully answered."
>
[David Buchanan] If i understand this quote correctly, Pirsig
is simply saying that intellectual values should rule, but that SOM is a
flawed set of such values. I really don't see how it can be interpeted
as an anti-intellectual statement. Pirsig is an intellectual, after all.
MOQ is supposed to repair that flawed intellect and my posts on the
difference between the social and intellectual level have been very much
about that repair job. Explaining the conflict between the top two
levels is a huge part of that repair job, no? I hope you don't imagine
that I'm in favor of SOM or scientific objectivity. And I should add
that it not precisely correct to say that I think "intellectuals should
rule society". I'm just saying that intellectual values are more evolved
and we ought to go them in cases of conflict with social level values.
Its not about some Philosopher King or the Republic of college
professors.
> The whole point of Lila was to answer that question--the only
> intellectual treatise I'm aware of that begins with the assumption
> that morals not only have objective reality but are all that is.
>
[David Buchanan] But, "As far as Phaedrus knew, that question
had NEVER BEEN successfully answered". So how can you say Lila answers
it? I think Lila only helps us understand what the question means. "Was
this (SOM) the intellectual pattern it (The intellectual level)was going
to run society with?" That's a question that will only be answered in
the future, right? We're just going to have to wait and see WHAT KIND of
intellect rules society. The intellectual level is in charge already.
Pirsig describes it as a matter of historical fact. You know, 1918, WW1,
death of the Victorians and all that.
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
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