From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Nov 06 2004 - 14:08:53 GMT
HI DMB
Good point that intellect is seen as having a high value
only as the 4th of the 4 static levels. I think Sam's problem
is solved if we look at how we value DQ and then link this
to how we understand what we mean by human beings.
I.e. a certain coming together of the 4 levels and DQ into
an evolving pattern that is a greater whole, a microcosm.
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 2:46 AM
Subject: RE: MD the worst thing about 9/11 according to the MoQ
> SAm and all MOQers:
>
> Sam Norton said:
> As I understand the 'standard' MoQ, the highest value lies with those
> elements on the fourth level, ie what can be 'manipulated with symbols',
> and
> DQ. When, for example, Pirsig is discussing the American Civil War he
> gives
> an
> instrumentalist justification, which has no place for the value of people
> as
> such. ...in the MoQ it is the intellectual construct, the IDEA which is
> more
> important than the society. ...So far as I can read it aright, the
> analysis
> of 9/11 from a MoQ point of view would say that those things of highest
> value (fourth level static quality and potential for DQ) were IDEAS, not
> people.
>
> dmb objected:
> Instrumentalist justification? I think its essentially a moral
> justification.
> Pirsig is isn't saying that math formulas are more important than people,
> he's
> saying that, as far as static patterns go, intellect is worth preserving
> above all BECAUSE of the way they serve and enhance LIFE as we know it.
>
> Sam replied:
> 'Instrumentalist' is a technical term in moral philosophy, I guess you're
> unfamiliar with that sort of thing. ...In other words, the intellect gains
> value as it is instrumental in preserving life etc, it has no value in
> itself ...I think Pirsig would say that intellect has value as SQ, ie it
> is
> not instrumentally good).
>
> dmb says:
> There you go again. One day you say that Pirsig gives an "instrumentalist
> justification, which has no place for the value of people as such", only
> ideas - and the next you say Pirsig's intellect "is not instrumentally
> good". And again with suggestion that I'm ignorant, that I should know
> you're using "a technical term in moral philosophy". Sam, you're so eager
> to
> condemn me that you're tripping all over yourself. You're contradicting
> yourself. In fact, it was your description of an instrumentalist
> justification that made me believe it was a cold and calculating
> philosophy
> devoid of any moral sense that made me object. Your scolding correction
> that
> its about "preserving life" should be directed at yourself insofar as you
> gave the opposite impression, that the MOQ's highest value is "IDEAS, not
> people".
>
> Pirsig in chapter 24:
> "...to the question, 'What is the purpose of all this intellectual
> knowledge?' the MOQ answers, 'the fundamental purpose of knowledge is to
> Dynamically improve and preserve society'."
>
> Sam said:
> My point is that the standard MoQ has no locus of value corresponding to
> people as such, therefore people (whether they exist or not in the MoQ)
> are
> of only indirect concern - what is of value is the IDEA. I'm not sure
> you've
> grasped my point here.
>
> dmb says:
> I think your oncoherent point is based on a misconception of the self. You
> think that because Pirsig has rejected the notion of the isolated ego self
> as anything more than a conventional construct, then there are no such
> things as people. Its not that I fail to grasp this point, it that I think
> its entirely ridiculous! And your lame attempt to paint the MOQ as
> heartless
> and amoral is equally ridiculous.
>
> dmb had said:
> It seems to me that if we followed the logic of Sam's interpretaton all
> the
> way through to the end, we might conclude that the MOQ supports a genocide
> against all the stupid people.
>
> Sam replied:
> Please do explain why the MoQ would see this as a bad thing (starting from
> the axiom that 'stupid people' are incapable of generating positive value
> in
> fourth level SQ and overall DQ terms). The more I ponder this the more I
> think it is a major problem for the MoQ. But as you know, I've gone into
> elements of this before.
>
> dmb says:
> The MOQ advocates genocide against stupid people? You can seriously
> entertain the thought? I find it impossible to take such a thoutht
> seriously. It was intended to point out the absurity of your position and
> instead of objecting with vigor, you've embraced the ridiculous.
>
> More later,
> dmb
>
>
> 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
>
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 Nov 06 2004 - 21:38:33 GMT