From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 19:40:54 BST
Steve, David, et al,
Wow, I hadn't been reading this thread, cause I was too far behind in it.
But it appears I have been thinking about the same things as Steve in my
posts about the opposite hierarchies and in my last post to Glenn:
>Steve said:
>He is intellectually dominated to the point that he can't really have a
>conversation with someone because his mind starts drifting away. Look at
>how the Narrator in ZAMM deals with his troubled son as well.
I think this is evidence of his personal distance from quality. I have no
idea how immediately he would appreciate art (but how much someone feels
they appreciate art is more a function of their ego than anything else: I
think Platt said something about beauty being appreciated as a constant,
equally by everyone, but I may be misremembering) but it seems he is very
distanced from personal experience of quality.
And David made this point first:
>Pirsig's depiction of the intellectual's inability to communicate has a
>purpose in the book. He's trying to show that it is nearly impossible for
>the intellect to deal directly with biology.
But I think when David says:
>Notice that he doesn't have nearly as much trouble talking to
>Rigel
But he does - he can't respond at all, and just annoys Rigel. And in ZAMM,
he's the "movie star" who is oblivious to all conversations around him,
though perhaps those were low quality people (artist, drummer, wives, kid)
he needn't bother with?
>and, after the initial celebrity induced "goon out", he and Redford
>had a very nice conversation. They even connected, in a way.
I didn't get the impression they really connected very well. It seemed
strained and awkward all the way to the goodbye.
>An intelligent
>artist like Redford doesn't take him for a "sad sack" at all. That's just
>how Lila sees him.
You don't think he is a sad sack? I think Phaedrus decided she was right,
that he was indeed a sad sack.
>My point is only that intellectuals are NOT socially
>inept so much as they have trouble socializing with the inept.
Wait, who are they good at socializing with? Talking about philosophy or
zen until dawn with you is not really socializing, it is intellectualizing -
just talking about and serving patterns that have no connection to you but
only use you, keeping you from real socializing, which if it isn't social,
why is it called that? You may have loads of fun doing it, and feel it was
a high qualty experience, but I think it is a vicarious connection to
quality, much like watching the home team win a baseball game. You feel
good, but you aren't playing - you bought the tickets, the players got paid.
Wouldn't Squonk agree that there are better ways to spend the night? But
then, just getting that biological quality is not socializing either.
Social quality is about the connection between people at a very individual
biological level and is all about being moral and doing what is expected.
Social quality is felt when the social experience proceeds as you expect it
to, and you have very strong expectations that it will continue to.
>The
>smartest people I know are also the funniest and most charming people I
>know. I think this is not a co-incidence.
Funny and charming are traits that that are already seperating themselves
from the social level - they are traits of intellectuals. Intellectual
humor, which is surely what you consider the funniest, is intrinsically
elitist, it is all about feeling in on the latest joke, the smartest joke.
Of course it is not a coincidence - you are an intellectual, the people you
admire are intellectuals
Johnny
>I've limited
>anecdotal evidence and we're really just talking about personality types, I
>guess, but lots of the people I hang out with could rightly be called
>intellectuals. Some of them dress like nerds, but everyone of them could
>entertain me until dawn with nothing more than words. I'm sure of that. The
>smartest people I know are also the funniest and most charming people I
>know. I think this is not a co-incidence.
>From: David Buchanan <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: "'moq_discuss@moq.org'" <moq_discuss@moq.org>
>Subject: RE: MD The Eudaimonic MoQ
>Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2003 17:16:47 -0600
>
>Steve, Sam and all MOQers:
>
>Steve said to Sam:
>I assume you brought Spock into this because you think that (a) Spock is
>the
>epitome of an intellectually dominated person and (b) the MOQ says that it
>is best to be intellectually dominated, which would suggest a problem with
>the description of the intellectual level because none of us think that
>Spock is the ideal person.
>
>dmb says:
>There's nobody like Spock, and I mean that quite literally. There's no such
>thing as a purely rational creature. We all know this from everyday
>experience of the world and from being in our own skins. In the original
>Star Trek, as in Plato's REPUBLIC, a single human psyche is divided into
>three distinct aspects. Spock is a fiction that represents one third of a
>mind. Naturally, this is not our idea of a well rounded or ideal person.
>
>Steve continued:
>DMB seems to disagree with(a) and agree with(b). I agree with(a) but
>not(b).
>I don't think that what is best is to be dominated by intellect. Pirsig
>says what is best is to be free of all static patterns which is often
>interpreted to mean some sort of enlightenment. I think it may also be
>read
>to mean having everything in balance.
>
>dmb says:
>Maybe you'd agree that AS FAR AS STATIC QUALITY GOES, its is best to be
>"dominated" by 4th level values, but only "dominated" in the sense of the
>moral codes. I mean, we're talking about making the most moral choice here,
>not some crushing tyranny. We're talking about a hierarchy of VALUES. I
>agree with your objections. Freedom FROM all static patterns certainly is
>best, but that's part of the same moral code. And I largely agree with the
>call for balance. That's what both Plato and Rodenberry sought to
>demonstrate by representing the human soul in fragments. We'll get to watch
>Kirk weigh Spock's cold reason against McCoy's passionate emotionalism and
>find a balance on cable for the rest of our lives.
>
>Steve said:
>In Lila, Phaedrus represents intellectual quality (Rigel represents social
>quality, Lila represents biological quality, the boat represents inorganic
>quality). Most of us probably identified most with Phaedrus and assumed
>that what is best is to be like him. None of us wanted to be like Lila or
>Rigel (or the boat). But Phaedrus himself is a bit of a Spock, isn't he?
>
>dmb says:
>I think Pirsig's encounter with insanity and his advocacy of mysticism set
>him quite apart from the typical intellectual, but I know what you mean.
>He's a dork and nerd, just as much as those who have recently confessed to
>being the same. I agree with how you rank the characters into levels. But I
>still think you're misreading his apparent lack of social skills a bit. For
>example,...
>
>Steve said:
>He is intellectually dominated to the point that he can't really have a
>conversation with someone because his mind starts drifting away. Look at
>how the Narrator in ZAMM deals with his troubled son as well.
>
>dmb says:
>Leaving ZMM aside for the moment...
>Pirsig's depiction of the intellectual's inability to communicate has a
>purpose in the book. He's trying to show that it is nearly impossible for
>the intellect to deal directly with biology. They need that 3rd level as a
>middle term. Notice that he doesn't have nearly as much trouble talking to
>Rigel and, after the initial celebrity induced "goon out", he and Redford
>had a very nice conversation. They even connected, in a way. An intelligent
>artist like Redford doesn't take him for a "sad sack" at all. That's just
>how Lila sees him. To complicate matters, in his actual life, and in the
>book, the man is NOT pretty. He spends some time talking about how he'd
>never had much to desire physically and all the girls let him know it with
>their giggles and such. My point is only that intellectuals are NOT
>socially
>inept so much as they have trouble socializing with the inept. I've limited
>anecdotal evidence and we're really just talking about personality types, I
>guess, but lots of the people I hang out with could rightly be called
>intellectuals. Some of them dress like nerds, but everyone of them could
>entertain me until dawn with nothing more than words. I'm sure of that. The
>smartest people I know are also the funniest and most charming people I
>know. I think this is not a co-incidence.
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
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 : Mon Jun 02 2003 - 19:41:48 BST