From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jul 13 2003 - 00:10:45 BST
Steve and all MOQers:
Steve said:
I think what you are pointing out is a significant limitation of merely
thinking of the levels as types of people. Doing so can't even distinguish
the unabomber from Ghandi! But DMB will probably supply some Wilbereze to
"clarify" using such words as...
dmb replies:
We don't Wilber to tell the difference between Ghandi and the unabomber.
Pirsig spends some time talking about the difference between evolutionary
contrarians and mere criminals. As examples, he writes of the Brujo, Ghandi,
lincoln, John Browne, the Bohemians and hippies, and he writes of his own
role as a cultural contrarian. Sometimes its hard to tell the difference
between moral RE-generation and moral DE-generation, but not in this case.
Ghandi expanded freedom for millions and served the process of life through
peace and wisdom while Ted spread fear and death for a cause all his own.
Slam dunk. No brainer. Color me judgemental, but I think its obvious. Also,
I'd again concede that clarity is a good thing, but I find it almost
unimaginable to think of social or intellectual values, without thinking of
specific and concrete examples. Pirsig hardly does anything else...
From chapter 22:
"The hurricane of social forces released by the overthrow of society by
intellect was most strongly felt in Europe, ..where Communism and socialism,
programs for intellectual control over society, were confronted by the
reactionary forces of fascism, a program for the social control of
intellect."
"if he had to pick one person wymbolized this shift more than any other, he
would have picked President Woodrow Wilson."
"Phaedrus thought that no other historical or political analysis explains
the enormity of these forces as clearly as does the MOQ. The gigantic power
of socialism and fascism, which have overwhelmed this century, is EXPLAINED
BY A CONFLICT OF LEVELS OF EVOLUTION. This conflict explains the driving
force behind Hilter... as an all-consuming glorification of social authority
and hatred in intellectualism." "In the United States Franklin Roosevelt and
the New Deal became the center of a lesser storm between social and
intellectual forces."
You know what I don't get? Why should examples from the real world do
anything but add clarity and accessability? It only seems helpful to me. If
you ask what in the world I'm talking about, I have concrete and specific
examples to which I can refer. And that's a good thing.
Steve said:
I believe Pirsig said that what's best is not to be dominated by any static
level, perhaps someone has the quote handy. I couldn't find it.
dmb says:
That's right. At first, introducing DYNAMIC Quality while we're sorting out
the levels of STATIC quality stuck me as a little like bringing highway
design into a discussion of snow tires, but I think there is an interesting
correlation. Just as I was writing this I heard a radio interview with
Richard Florida, author of "THE RISE OF THE CREATIVE CLASS". He was a rather
conventionally minded scholar of economic development, and so assumed that
the economic vitality of any given city was mostly related to the size and
wealth of the companies it could attract. As it turns out, he says, the most
important indicators of a city's vitality are cultural, not financial. It
turns out that cities with sizable gay and bohemian populations tend to
attract creative people of all kinds, including scientists, hi-tech workers,
and creative business types, who tend to be mavericks, if not outright
anti-corporate. (My town, Denver, is not very big, but ranked 6th out of 206
cities. I'm so proud.) The reasoning goes that creative people vote with
their feet. They leave Cleveland and move to San Francisco. The run from
Buffalo and take an apartment in New York City. (I left Detroit for Denver.
Such a no-brainer that it probably doesn't even count. Ha!) My point might
not be clear if I didn't add that the cities with the highest "creativity
index" were usually the cities with the most educated and politically
progressive populations. Its all about an openness. Its about NOT being all
that fond of conventional things. These cities tend to be not only richer
than their more conservative counterparts, they're just a hell of a lot more
fun places to live. That's what the migrants are voting for. There's a
reason we associate artists and intellectuals and think of them as playing
on the same team (against the suits and suburbanites) and this new book
really seems to nail down the sociology of that friendship.
Thanks for your time,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 13 2003 - 00:15:56 BST