From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 21:27:36 BST
Platt, Ant McWatt and all free shoppers:
dmb says:
Apologies in advance for the editing. I've tried to preserve the main
points....
Ant McWatt stated September 8th:
...Platt's (comment) is misleading ..because he has erroneously conflated
SOM intellectual patterns with the MOQ's intellectual level as a whole.
Platt Holden commented on September 9th:
...I merely repeated what Pirsig said about SOM "intellectuals."
Ant McWatt replied:
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.
dmb says:
Exactly. Platt has repeatedly used Pirsig's criticisms of SOM to indict the
fourth level as a whole. In the case of his defense of the so-called "free
market", he even uses it to assert the superiority of social level values
over intellectual values, which is not just erroneous, but also immoral.
I've tried to make this point many times, but I suspect Platt would prefer
to misread or even to alter the MOQ rather than change his beleifs about
capitalism. And it more than just an affection for a certain economic
system. This conflation comes in quite handy whenever Platt's
anti-intellectual instincts flare up.
Ant McWatt comments on the "individual" level:
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.
dmb says:
Exactly. Living beings can respond to DQ and are the source of new ideas,
but individuality and our modern ideas about the self are NOT what responds.
Rather, they are a product of that response. Platt wishes to replace the
intellectual level with the individual level because of the intellect's
flaws, but, ironically, his concept of the individual is one of the
nightmares created by SOM and the MOQ considers it a ridiculous fiction.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
...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 replied:
[major snip] ...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).
dmb says:
Right, the devil is in the details, but I think its safe to say that the MOQ
would support an intellectually guided political economy that DOESN'T
inadvertantly close the door on the dynamic. I'd point out that neither the
capitalists nor the socialists ever figured out what that was all about. But
I'd also point out that Platt is simply incorrect in asserting that free
markets are more moral than intellectually guided economies. That's the
exact opposite of what Pirsig says. He says they are less moral and points
out a different kind of superiority. The dynamic quality that makes free
markets superior AS MARKETS, does not negate the moral codes or constitute
an exception to the MOQ's hierarchy. SOM's blindness to this factor cannot
rightly be used against one side and not the other. And this are just some
of the confusions that occur in Platt's conflation of SOM with intellect
itself.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
...Most universities are dominated by SOM. ...Not to mention SOM intellect's
failure to perceive DQ. I say it's immoral to support SOM thinking with
taxpayer funds.
Ant McWatt replied:
As are most Western societies including their business sectors. The MOQ
overhaul must apply to all sectors of society, not just the university
sector.
...you would be in danger of undermining the subsequent development of an
MOQ orientated university sector. ...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.
dmb adds:
Most universities are dominated by SOM and its immoral to support SOM
thinking? I'm horrified by the implications of Platt's assertions and I'm
impressed that Ant can respond to them so calmly. As I see it, Platt is
using SOM's flaws to suggest we ought to defund our institutions of higher
learning. Its hard to imagine what could be more anti-intellectual or more
destructive of the possibility of outgrowing SOM, as Ant points out. As I
see it, this is an example of that handy conflation once again being used to
undermine the intellect.
Platt Holden stated on September 9th:
........................ 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 said:
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 :-) ,
dmb says:
Not only that, but despite postmodernism's flaws, it actually represents the
demise of SOM. It is the beginning of the end of SOM. In fact, in that
respect at least, the MOQ is part of the postmodern movement, as are most
serious thinkers of the last several generations. It may be true that a
great many of them are only continuing or even exaggerating the problems
identified by Pirsig, postmodernism is still a positive development AWAY
from SOM, which is essentially the Modern worldview. And however we slice
it, the solution will be found in intellectual creativity, not in the
economy or any other part of the social level. It will continue to be a
giant conflict, but there is space enough and time enough for better
worldviews to come along, provided we don't destroy that project as Platt
seems to want.
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.
dmb says:
When the government controls business we call it Communism and when business
controls the government we call it Fascism. That's the problem you never
seem to grasp. Money is an index of social value and when money runs the
government, you get one guided and dominated by social level values and that
is more or less hostile to intellectual level values. And more to Platt's
ham-handed point, commercial interests ARE backed by guns to the extent that
our national defense is aimed at protecting those commercial interests.
Historically, it is an indisputable fact that the U.S. military has often
used force to support business interests and the present war is certainly
aimed at protecting the flow of oil, among other things. And when education
is forced to adapt to the rules of the marketplace, it'll be dominated by
social level values too. Then we won't have education or intellectual
freedom at all, although I'm sure it would be marketed as such. Instead
we'll get job training and indoctrination.
And think about the LIE DETECTOR thread, where people are confessing that
they'll piss in a cup or allow their persperation rates in order to get or
keep a job. Think about the confessions of self-imposed inauthenticity, of
hiding most facets of ourselves from co-workers. And this kind of outrageous
coersion is multiplied in a million tiny ways everyday. Commercial interests
are not just profit makers, they are employers and in a world where money is
a necessity for life, that means they are very powerful. It is the only
domain from which we can get money to support basic biological needs and
one's occupation is vital socially too. Most people hang their identity and
self-worth upon to some at least some extent. When you've got that kind of
thing hanging over people's heads, you don't need a gun.
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 - 21:29:17 BST