From: ant.mcwatt@ntlworld.com
Date: Fri Sep 10 2004 - 23:26:10 BST
Subject: Re: MD The free market of thought
Dear Platt,
Thanks for going through my last e-mail in some detail. I have just read through your comments and have made the following replies:
Ant McWatt stated on September 7th:
> Remember a free market means a dynamic system whether economic or
> educational and the latter (in the MOQ) is primary.
Platt Holden commented on this September 7th:
> And educational dynamic system primary in the MOQ? I don't think so. Pirsig
> blasted intellectuals in Lila, calling their obeisance to scientific
> objectivity “hogwash” (Lila, 22). Further negative assessments of
> intellectuals can be found in Chapters 22 and 24.
Platt Holden further stated on September 9th:
In Lila, Pirsig specifically defines the free market as an economic system.
Nowhere does he say anything about a free market “educational system.”
Ant McWatt comments:
Pirsig doesn’t specifically define “free market” in LILA but was simply using the usual (SOM?) understanding of “free market” as referring to the economic sector alone. In his later correspondence with me concerning education he was using an expanded (MOQ orientated) definition of “free market” that primarily refers to the Dynamic to emphasise the fact that the social level is not the only level open to Dynamic Quality.
“I think the MOQ regards any government supervision of the university
curriculum as a form of evil because this is a social pattern attempting to
control intellectual patterns. It is hypocritical for conservatives to
denounce government interference in the free market place of commerce and
then turn around and enforce government interference in the free market
place of thought.” (Robert Pirsig to Anthony McWatt, July 3rd 2002)
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> These references to intellectuals (i.e. remember these are social patterns)
> and the intellectual level struck me as rather vague and unhelpful
> (definite quotes, please Platt!) so I re-read Chapters 22 and 24.
Platt Holden asked on September 9th:
Please clarify why references to intellectuals are “social patterns.” Are
you saying intellectuals are social patterns, or that references are
social patterns?
Ant McWatt replies:
Intellectuals per se are a social grouping i.e. a social group that professionally engages in intellectually orientated work (usually in an educational setting).
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> This
> clearly indicates that the above comment of Platt’s is misleading (it is
> indeed first class “hogwash” itself) because he has erroneously conflated
> SOM intellectual patterns (i.e. a concern with “objectivity” as providing
> the absolute truth) with the MOQ’s intellectual level as a whole (in which
> the SOM intellectual pattern is but one of a myriad of differing
> intellectual patterns).
Platt Holden commented on September 9th:
No. I merely repeated what Pirsig said about SOM “intellectuals.”
Ant McWatt comments:
No, you didn’t merely repeat what Pirsig said about SOM “intellectuals” because you took Pirsig’s references out of context by failing to make it clear that he was criticising SOM intellectuals alone rather than intellectuals as a whole (many of which, such as Buddhist philosophers, for instance, are certainly not SOM intellectuals). This is why your September 7th statement that “Pirsig blasted intellectuals in Lila” is dangerously misleading and first class hogwash. I don’t see the term “SOM” in this
sentence.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> Firstly, in Chapter 22, Pirsig makes it clear that the intellectual level
> is given a higher priority in the MOQ than the social level:
> 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.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Which is why Pirsig is against the death penalty in most cases, and why
individuals, the source of ideas, are morally superior to society.
Ant McWatt comments:
I read the MOQ as agreeing with the (Buddhist) idea that intellectual patterns are the source of individuals i.e. the idea of the self. This is why I think terming the intellectual level the “individual” level would be an error.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> McWatt notes: Pirsig then qualifies the above statement in that the
> SOM-based intellect that has been in control (during the 20th century) has
> a defect; namely it essentially perceives morals as unreal:
----cut----
> McWatt notes: Subsequently, in Chapter 24, Pirsig makes it clear that it is
> only social patterns which seek to dominant intellectual patterns which are
> immoral; not social patterns as a whole, that it is indeed moral for
> intellect to assist society in its control of biological patterns:
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Right. But it isn't moral for SOM intellect to control economic social
patterns because they don't recognize DQ. Recall that Pirsig says the free
market economic system is more moral than the socialist system for that
reason.
Ant McWatt comments:
Now that’s an interesting point though it requires considerable clarification.
Firstly, “the” free market economic system is a fiction (in as much as any socialist or communist system is a fiction). Northrop makes the important point (one of many which is why anyone seriously interested in Pirsig & the MOQ should read Northrop) in “Logic of the Sciences and Humanities” that many debates concerned with social systems become confused by conflating the ideal notion of these systems (such as the writings of Karl Marx or the teachings of Jesus) with their actual deformed manifestations (such
as Soviet Communism and Christian Fundamentalism).
Secondly, though it is not ideal (though probably better than nothing) for SOM intellect to control free market economic systems (because they don't recognize DQ), it certainly isn’t moral for SOM business people (who also fail to recognise DQ) to undermine the “free market place of thought”. In other words, there already exists Dynamic elements within the social and intellectual levels which are not fully recognised by SOM business people and SOM intellectuals. As such, great harm is being done by commercial
interests (and governments such as the UK government who buy into commercial ideology) to the free market place of thought. An example of this is auditing on commercial lines that has been recently applied inappropriately to the UK university system which has undermined academic quality (my education paper goes into this in detail and I will put the updated version of this back on my website soon).
Thirdly, would it be moral for MOQ intellect to control economic social patterns because it does recognize DQ? I think the answer is definitely yes because MOQ intellect would let free markets of economic social patterns operate completely freely except when they undermine the (morally higher) free market place of thought i.e. a balanced system that is neither fully blown capitalism (which can lead to degeneracy) nor socialist (which can lead to boredom and a lack of social freedom).
On September 8th, Ant McWatt quoted Lila, Chapter 24:
> These subject-object patterns were never designed
> for the job of governing society. They're not doing it. When they're put
> in the position of controlling society, of setting moral standards and
> declaring values, and when they then declare that there are no values and
> no morals, the result isn't progress. The result is social catastrophe.
> It's this intellectual pattern of amoral “objectivity” that is to blame for
> the social deterioration of America, because it has undermined the static
> social values necessary to prevent deterioration. In its condemnation of
> social repression as the enemy of liberty, it has never come forth with a
> single moral principle that distinguishes a Galileo fighting social
> repression from a common criminal fighting social repression. It has, as a
> result, been the champion of both. That's the root of the problem
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Is this is the type of thinking you want to taxpayers to support? Most
universities are dominated by SOM.
Ant McWatt comments:
As are most Western societies including their business sectors. The MOQ overhaul must apply to all sectors of society, not just the university sector.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> McWatt notes: Hence, in the subsequent paragraphs, the criticism by Pirsig
> of the SOM intellectual sentiment that the social level needs to be
> undermined. However, it is important to note that this is not a criticism
> by Pirsig of the MOQ intellectual level per se. As such, it is important
> to note that these two types of intellectual patterns are being
> mischievously conflated by Platt in his arguments:
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
If anyone is doing the conflating, it's you. To you, the intellectual
level, SOM and the MOQ are all intellectual patterns of the same type,
whereas both SOM and the MOQ are subspecies of the intellectual level.
Ant McWatt comments:
You have a point here, Platt, though your conflation of SOM intellect in your previous posts with the intellectual level as a whole (as recognised by the MOQ) was seriously misleading.
Having said that, it still would have been more precise of me to distinguish between the intellectual level as a whole (as recognised by the MOQ) with the MOQ intellectual pattern itself which is one type (as is SOM intellect) of the various intellectual patterns that exist.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> McWatt notes: Continuing, in Chapter 24, Pirsig then concludes that (the
> intellectually-based) MOQ provides a solution to the amorality caused by
> SOM intellect’s failure to properly perceive the distinctions between
> intellectual, social and biological patterns:
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Not to mention SOM intellect's failure to perceive DQ. I say it's immoral
to support SOM thinking with taxpayer funds.
Ant McWatt comments:
Ideally, this is correct though if you were to suddenly stop funding universities because they presently subscribe to SOM ideology, you would be in danger of undermining the subsequent development of an MOQ orientated university sector. The same thing could be said about the SOM orientated military or business sectors in the West. The essential point is that a movement towards MOQ thinking is required in all sectors – to severely damage or undermine any sector because it is presently SOM orientated would
probably be a mistake.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> McWatt notes: And this is why completely unfettered commercial free
> markets in all aspects of life can lead to immorality – without any
> intellectual control these social patterns may eventually dominate
> intellectual and Dynamic interests rather than serve them (as governments
> and commercial organizations sometimes do with university curriculums).
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
I notice you have switched from free markets in general to “commercial”
free markets. What happened to “dynamic educational systems?” And why
don't completely unfettered educational free markets lead to immorality,
especially if dominated (as we know they are) by SOM intellectuals?
Ant McWatt notes:
To return to Northrop, I think you are confusing how commercial and educational systems presently work with their Dynamic ideals. An unfettered educational free market is highly unlikely to exist if the education sector continues to be dominated by SOM intellectuals because they wouldn’t consciously recognise it or develop it though (like capitalists with free economic markets) they might have a vague idea that this type of “free market” has a higher quality than static orientated systems.
Would unrestrained creativity be a bad thing? Probably not though, having said that, I think this question requires considerably more thought.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> Thus when Platt states that “Governments… never hand out taxpayer money
> without strings attached, including to universities” the morality of these
> conditions depend on whether or not they are social or intellectual. Only
> if the conditions undermine intellectual independence are they immoral and
> is why Pirsig emphasized in ZMM that the true Church man in the university
> system must maintain the (intellectual value of) truth no matter what the
> social pressures are.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Precisely the point. With postmodernism, universities have made a
determined move away from maintaining the intellectual value of truth.
Further, we have seen what “intellectual independence” has wrought in the
name of SOM -- in Pirsig's words, “social catastrophe.”
Ant McWatt notes:
The “intellectual independence” that Pirsig refers to might have brought about various social problems in the 20th century but Pirsig also makes it clear that the independence of the intellectual level from the social level (in the 1920s) was a moral act. The MOQ is an idea from an independently minded intellectual to help remedy the difficulties that SOM orientated intellects have caused and certainly does not support, in any form or manner, the idea that “intellectual independence” needs to be removed per se.
As such, and judging from your recent posts (since 1997 anyway), I think I need to set you some homework, Platt :-) ,
Write the following line 50 times after reading MOQ Discuss tonight:
“I am not Richard Rigel.”
(If you do, I might write out “I am not a hippie” 50 times).
> Similarly, the morality of the stipend that Pirsig received from the
> Guggenheim Foundation for writing LILA again depends on whether, or not,
> the conditions limited intellectual independence. However, it would
> certainly be moral for a government or a private organization such as the
> Guggenheim to set certain restrictions e.g. that a grant be spent on an
> intellectual purpose and not a biological one such as buying alcohol.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Would it be OK, considering the immorality of SOM, to restrict grants to only those professors who adopted the MOQ?
Ant McWatt notes:
Being biased – of course - I’d say that the whole budget for the UK university sector should be controlled by me (and any other MOQ academic that might exist) to install an MOQ orientated education system. Unfortunately, I think the present SOM incumbents might have different ideas :-) . Seriously, in an ideal world, I’d answer the question as “probably not” because if we were to ever improve on the MOQ, we have to give some thought to alternative theories which might be an improvement. Of course, this would
still rule out much SOM orientated research because SOM thinking has already been shown as lower quality than the MOQ.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> As
> far as “commercial interests” are concerned, no doubt they bestow grants
> “on ivory tower professors” to provide the high quality engineers, science
> and business graduates so essential to maintain the profits of these
> commercial interests.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Since commercial interests are private, have earned their own money, and
cannot back their restrictions with guns, I don't see a problem.
Ant McWatt notes:
Well, I don’t see any problem either as long as these “commercial interests” that rely so much on the university sector to provide their profits, don’t mind, in turn, being taxed to help provide a high quality education system. Though, of course, shareholders of commercial companies (as with anyone else) have the ballot box in a free democracy to vote out any government who doesn’t provide such a system.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> Finally, to state that “To put artists in the same category of police,
> soldiers, doctors and employers is an insult to all” strikes me as a very
> strange comment coming from someone purporting to support the MOQ and who
> occasionally likes to eulogize about the merits of beauty. Let’s put it
> this way, doctors maintain the stability of biological patterns; employers,
> soldiers and police maintain the stability of social patterns all of which,
> in an ideal world, serve intellectual purposes (at least, in the MOQ they
> do).
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Well, if you put it that way, every occupation supports some level somehow.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> While, art may not directly contribute to maintaining the stability
> of the lower static levels necessary for the “well-being” of the
> intellectual level, it provides us with the intuitive insight to the beauty
> and mystery of the universe.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Very well put.
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
> Without this draw of the Dynamic, the
> existence of the static levels (and especially the intellectual) is
> considerably diminished. Northrop’s “The Logic of the Sciences and
> Humanities” makes this latter point very well.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
Which is why artists [are put] ahead of the pack, the good ones, that is.
Ant McWatt comments:
It seems that we have reached some sort of agreement here though it leaves me wondering why you stated, in the first place, that “To put artists in the same category of police, soldiers, doctors and employers is an insult to all”. As far as I read the MOQ, good instances of each category are all essential to maintain a high quality society.
Platt Holden asked September 9th:
Finally, referring back to an earlier passage, since we both want a free
market of thought, is it correct to call this market “social thought?”
Ant McWatt answers:
No. The free market of thought that Pirsig was referring to in his original quote from July 2002 refers to intellectual patterns though, of course, these are transferred via social means such as books, papers and conferences.
Platt Holden stated September 9th:
Thanks for your thoughts,
Ant McWatt answers:
Thank you for the various clarifications concerning this issue, Platt.
Best wishes,
Anthony.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 16:30:26 BST