From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 02:08:53 BST
Hi Sam, and all,
Sam, you threw out a lot of ideas in your starting post, some of
which I see as an attempt to get your honesty-truth, Eudaemonic MOQ
ideas a head-start in the discussion. This sort of sly, anglican
attempt to set the boundaries of intellectual investigation WILL NOT
STAND. At least not until I've had a chance to set the boundaries of
intellectual investigation, in my sly progressive way.
What I'd like to do, first, is see if we can come to some agreement
about the five moral conflicts, and to what extent they interact, if
at all. You laid them out ok with:
The MoQ postulates five moral conflicts: those between each level
(Chaos - In, In - Org, Org - Soc, Soc - Int) and static/dynamic.
This is ok, but let's use "Bio" rather than "Org, since many of the
issues I hope to settle will involve the use of the word
"biological." Can we also agree that the first four conflicts are
always in play in every human being, but that, for the purposes of
our discussion we need to focus on Org-Soc and Soc-Int, with the Stat-
Dyn conflict being the driving force behind moral disputes within the
limits of these two moral codes?
And can we agree that it's fair to say that individual human beings
may be described as Bio-Dominant, Soc-Dominant, or Int-Dominant? It
seems clear that the character Lila, with her overriding interest in
food, drink, sex, is B-D. Rigel, with his emphasis on social
convention, and his fear that people like Lila pose a threat to
society, as well as his hostility toward the Intellectual level, can
be said to be S-D. Phaedrus is I-D, aloof, lost in his thoughts,
finding he must often drop down outta the clouds and force himself to
relate to others on the Bio and Soc levels. And can we agree that
none of this means that Lila and Rigel don't have thoughts, or that
Phaedrus never enjoys a good steak or sex?
Finally, I think there is a lot of confusion about the word
"intellectual," as can be seen by the dozens of ant-intellectual
posts that have occurred here in just the last several days. These
anti-intellectual posts seem, at times, to regard intellectuals as,
what, people with college degrees, university professors, people who
read a lot of difficult books? Or just people with whom the
intellectual-basher disagrees? There doesn't seem to be any clear
definition, yet the intellectual bashing that goes on here does have
a common underlying theme: the objectionable intellectual is the one
who disagrees with the clearly identifiable political agenda
personified by GWB in the US, and to a somewhat lesser extent, by
Blair in the UK.
So, I think the discussion will benefit if we can come to some
agreement about what is meant by the word "intellectual." Used as a
noun, I see any I-D individual as an "intellectual," but this does
not preclude a B-D or S-D from having higher quality "intellectual"
thoughts. Further, intellectuals may and certainly do have
disagreements about what constitutes a "high-quality" idea, but,
among intellectuals, there is a certain procedure for working this
out for themselves: discussion and arguments, based on evidence,
derived from experience. B-D and S-D individuals can certainly
participate in such discussions, but their participation will be
fruitful only if they are willing to put their B-D S-D inclinations
on the back-burner, and accept the established protocols of
intellectual exchange. If they can't, or won't, then the discussion
will almost certainly degenerate to social-level finger-wagging
(Rigel) or exasperated insults (Lila).
So, Sam and all, I think we'll save ourselves a lot of head-banging
and hand-wringing if we can reach some agreement on what I've said
above. Once we've done that, I think we'll be ready to look at the
two Lila-24 quotes which are pasted, what, a hundred times a year in
attempts to "prove" that RMP (via the MOQ) believes that
intellectuals have a moral responsibility to back society when it
attempts to exterminate anyone perceived to be a societal threat. I
refer to this as the "kill 'em all like germs" method of crime
control.
Here are the quotes:
The idea that biological crimes can be ended by intellect alone, that
you can talk crime to death, doesn't work. Intellectual patterns
cannot directly control biological patterns. Only social patterns can
control biological patterns, and the instrument of conversation
between society and biology is not words. The instrument of
conversation between society and biology has always been a policeman
or a soldier and his gun. (LILA-24, Bantam HB, First Ed, pg 310))
Intellectuals must find biological behavior, no matter what its
ethnic connection, and limit or destroy destructive biological
patterns with complete moral ruthlessness, the way a doctor destroys
germs, before those biological patterns destroy civilization itself.
(LILA-24, Bantam HB, First Ed, pg 311)
Thanks to all,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com Mark Steven Heyman (msh) I'm astounded by people who want to 'know' the universe when it's hard enough to find your way around Chinatown. --Woody Allen 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 : Fri Jul 29 2005 - 02:18:01 BST