At 12:36 PM -0500 11/23/99, Platt Holden wrote:
>Hi Jack and Group:
>
>Jackbrn1o@aol.com wrote:
>
>“Just as an aside, to propose that celebrity is the highest form of
>social quality is ludicrous. Read what Buddhism has to say about
>celebrity - that's "hell on earth." The highest form of social quality is
>the most dynamic; i.e., the one that most promotes social/human
>development. By your statement Tom Cruise would have more
>social quality than someone like Mother Theresa because he’s a
>“bigger celebrity.”
>
>If the highest form of social quality is the one that most promotes
>social/human development, would you care to expand on what that
>form might be? By rating Mother Theresa higher than Tom Cruise,
>you imply that Roman Catholicism possesses high social quality,
>a position that those who were tortured during the Spanish
>Inquisition might quibble with.
>
Well I must say I'm a bit taken aback by these two responses. I agree with
neither Platt nor Jack on what I thought was a very basic teaching in Lila.
Social Quality - What is it? That goal to which every single member of a
society aspires. The goal of any society - sometimes stated and sometimes
not - is to be at the top of the social hierarchy one belongs to. There
are many, many social hierarchies. Roman Catholicism IS a social
hierarchy. So is modern pop culture. So is an ant colony for that matter.
The interactions of biological organisms in an organized way, engaging in
patterns transcendant over lower levels, is what the evolutionary ladder of
society is all about.
Every level has its highest good - on the social level, the highest good is
celebrity. Don't think "Tom Cruise" when I say celebrity. Think "that
goal toward which all the member aspire" In pop culture that could be
something like Tom Cruise or Robert Redford. In Catholicism that would be
the Pope. In American Govt, it's the President. In old England it was the
king. These are all "Celebrities". We "celebrate" them as our social
superiors in one form or another. Its confusing because people are
operating on many levels at once. Let's face it, Mother Teresa is also a
pop culture celebrity. Tom Cruise is also a member of that social pattern
called "America".
But Platt, you seem to be getting caught in the common pitfall of confusing
the different levels. For humans and their institutions also have an
evolving intellect as well. Mother Teresa is more than a celebrity to
starving and poor people. She's also a ... dead. But she WAS also a
thinking and reasoning human being who took certain ideas out of her social
context and made reasoned conclusions based upon this world of concepts and
ideas. She was aspiring to intellectual and social quality at the same
time. Probably came closer on both levels than Tom Cruise, but that's
beside the point. Mother Teresa would have sucked as Jerry Maguire. It's
a different society, with different standards of "celebrity-hood".
Second point.
>Any other suggestions? I ask because Pirsig seems to offer no
>form for promoting social/human development other than freedom
>from any form.
I can't even think about this statement without my head getting all twisted
with feeling of WRONG... BQ as opposed to DQ.
The best hope for the promotion or evolution of social/human development
_is_ freedom from any particular form. That is Pirsig's MOQ as I
understand it and I also believe of the highest intellectual quality - that
is, it's true.
jc
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