From: Dario Savella (dario_moq@growingman.com)
Date: Thu Aug 25 2005 - 04:26:06 BST
Hi Platt,
I will skip most of your reply because I have the impression it has been
prepared with my email on the left, Pirsig's books on the right and the
comments emerged when you were able to see a conflict btween the two.
I will add only that "intellect" has provision for morals, in my view,
because it must obey to what I call the "law of Quality".
It is moral for "intellect" -- an idea -- to destroy a society (i.e. it's
the right thing to do) only if, with the knowledge available at the time,
it seems the best solution to promote evolution.
At the same time "intellect" has to accept that DQ will reveal a new,
better way to address the problem some time in the future and react
accordingly (i.e. change its mind).
The ripples of this evolution cascade through the levels taking very
different "forms".
To put it in a different way, DQ will reveal to "intellect" a better way to
static-latch and in turn "intellect" will do that with society etc...etc...
It has not happened yet because we are learning (i.e. educating ourselves)
how to do it... that's the name of the game.
"We" are doing already many things to stop the terrorist.
I am suggesting that we _must_ also do _other_ things if we don't want to
live in fear or exterminate them all which I think are the low-quality
perspectives that are in front of us right now.
Dario
At 11:54 PM 24/08/2005, you wrote:
> > At 11:52 PM 23/08/2005, you (Platt)wrote:
> > > > Who is supposed to "monitor" society and prevent all those measures to
> > > > control biological "quality" (since you like the term) at the expenses
> > > > of a human life, namely a generator of change and DQ ?
> > >
> > >Society takes care of itself in meeting biological forces if allowed to do
> > >so without intellect's ham-handed interference such as Pirsig describes in
> > >Chap. 24.
> >
> > I believe Pirsig states that it is moral for each level to "use" and
> > "control" a lower level, provided that there are safeguards to prevent its
> > destruction. If the doctor can kill a virus, then intellect can and must
> > control (i.e. give guidance to) society.
>
>Yes, but Pirsig points out that intellect can't do the job of controlling
>society because it "has no provision for morals."
>
> > I believe that Chap. 24 highlights how, in the battle intellect fought to
> > emerge above society, there has been an excess when intellect started to
> > believe it could control the biological level too.
>
>Again, Pirsig points out the intellect blamed repressive society for
>society's ills, and so sided with biology, i.e. criminals. That was the
>disaster.
>
> > It seems a "natural" occurrence when trying to find a new balance... to
> > wabble between two extreme positions.
>
>Intellect will never find a "balance" until it recognizes the vital role
>of society in erecting a wall against "the ocean of biological quality,"
>i.e., terrorism and crime.
>
> > > > Since terrorist attacks are carried out at biological level, they
> > > > demand a biological response. Which type of response is dictated by
> > > > society, sure, but within a framework set up by intellect.
> > >
> > >Since intellect has no provision of morals, it's framework is all out of
> > >wack. Pirsig makes that clear and makes it the basis for his critique of
> > >current society.
> >
> > Mmmm... it doesn't seems to me that society is working all that well...
> > None of the levels is the custodian of "morals" if not in relation with the
> > other levels (see above).
>
>According to Pirsig, society is the custodian of morals against the forces
>of biology.
>
> > > > Althought terrorist display a F-class behaviour, they are still people,
> > > > A-class people. It's their behaviour that society has to address, not
> > > > them as human beings.
> > >
> > >Hard to separate a person from his behavior don't you think? Otherwise,
> > >why not let murderers go on murdering?
> >
> > No really... but if I start flodding this list with improper / not-approved
> > messages and spam, my account will be disabled, but I hope I won't get
> > flogged by the local police.
>
> > It's the difference between punishment and education.
> > Sure... it's easier and cheaper to just shot them... but... aren't we all
> > losing something (DQ) ?
>
>Yes, we can all lose our lives if we don't shoot or lock them up.
>
> > > > Yes, I am talking about terrorism as a form of childish behaviour
> > > > carried out by grown ups when they can't prove their point and be
> > > > "right" with other means.
> > >
> > >I hope you're not advocating we treat terrorists like children.
> >
> > Actually... yes. How do you think we managed to find ourselves typing on
> > these keyboards and using all this technology without education? If the
> > best way (the one with higher quality) to deal with conflict was to kill
> > the opponent, we would be still using clubs and caves as dwellings.
> >
> > Instead we evolved and DQ is showing the direction... just because it works
> > better in the long term. Only, as Pirsig wrote, we will be able to tell 100
> > years later.
> >
> > The choice though, has to be made now.
>
>Fine. What would your propose as the first step in "educating" terrorists?
>
>Platt
>
>
>
>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 : Thu Aug 25 2005 - 08:37:27 BST