From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 06:14:45 BST
Hi Platt, DMB
>DMB
>
> > Platt said:
> > My solution, at least for the present, is where intellect stops, values
> > begin.
> >
> > dmb says:
> > Oh, really? Then why does Pirsig call them intellectual patterns of
>VALUE?
> > Why does he so often use the phrase "intellectual values"? If values
>only
> > begin where intellect stops, then why does he refer to the intellectual
> > level as the highest level of static quality. Values go all the way up
>and
> > down. That's all there is.
>
>Correction. When intellect inevitably gets locked up in paradox patterns,
>undefinable Dynamic Quality shatters them.
Well sure, why wouldn't it? It's like the Seventh Cavalry.
I think there is something different between a pattern and value itself. A
something OF something must mean that the first thing isn't the same thing
as the second thing, or it wouldn't be OF, it would just be one thing.
RIght?
And DMB when you say, "why does he refer to the intellectual as the highest
level of dynamic quality" I say it's because he is referring to patterns
that relate to society, ideas that are about social patterns, the second
highest level. And you ask why he refers to "intellectual values" so much:
I think he is using "values" to mean those patterns that have developed on
the intellectual level. He's using the word "values" not "value". I think
Platt was thinking of value itself, not "his values" or "my values" or
"intellectual values", which are patterns of value. I think it is that same
one "value" that patterns of every level derive from, or for, or whatever.
But once they are patterns, they are of value, and that is also when they
are classified into one of the four levels.
> > Platt said:
> > For me, thinking that worries about what society thinks is dominated by
>the
> > social level. Thinking that cares less about what others think but
>follows
> > "objective" standards like mathematics, logic, computer programs,
> > scientific studies, etc. is dominated by intellectual values.
I think if a cave man, alone in his cave, calculates mathematically or
reasons logically about something like where to sleep so the water doesn't
drip on him in if it rains, it is a biological thought, even though it
"doesn't care what society thinks". Even if he constructs himself an
elaborate set of levers and pulleys to make himself a hammock, it's still
biological, not intellectual. As soon as he thinks, I gotta show the other
cave-men, this will really help our society stay dry, it is an intellectual
thought. He may have been thinking that all along, if it had started as
"hmm, how can I help society stay dry at night" and then he had invented the
hammock to fit the need using his biological faculties and talents, it would
be the other way around.
> > dmb says:
> > How about sociologist? Don't they worry about what society thinks? How
> > about political scientists? I get your point, but wouldn't it a little
> > better to say something like,... People dominated by social values are
> > conformists who do not seriously question convention. They are often
> > religious and patriotic.
We used to be able to say that they were moral, straight, upright people
too, but now actual social patterns have diverged from what we used think of
by those terms. I agree people dominated by social patterns could be said
to be people who need friends, who like people's approval, and therefore are
not conformists and religious people, as those people are no fun and are
quickly shunned away by the socially dominated.
>They are often also voter blocks, like blacks, union members and trial
>lawyers.
Not sure exactly what you mean here, but I think the strong social
restrictions on people in the "identity politics" movement might be another
example. They give up so many freedoms in order to be a good example of
whatever group they most identify with.
Have you read what Kaczynski wrote about the "over-socialized" people,
"leftists" who want to join a group for the collective pleasure?
> > They're usually interested in age-old
> > uncontroversial goals like power, fame, fortune, honor, etc. I mean, it
> > seems there are several ten of millions of examples, hundereds of which
>are
> > on TV or are otherwise widely known. If we want to talk about specific
> > examples, there is no shortage. Let's start with the millions who call
> > themselves Christians or conservatives. I think its safe to say that
>you'll
> > find lots of examples there.
>
>Also include atheists and liberals. You'll find many more millions of
>examples there.
Actually, I think Christians should not object to being left out of the
intellectual level at all. THe Sermon on the Mount was pretty much a
command to stop intellectualizing and worrying and just do what you should
do. Just follow the patterns. It may not work out great, you may be the
seed scattered on rocky soil, tossed into some bad patterns by accident of
birth, but it's OK.
But I agree that most athiests and liberals today are so because they have
followed the wide superhighway of social patterns laid out for them. They
aren't the originators of the thoughts about society (no one really is, the
thoughts emerge from other thoughts as soon as they collide in the right
proportion in someone's head) they are just propogators of the idea, which
they do socially, because it establishes them as cool people at dinner
parties.
Johnny
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
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 Jul 21 2003 - 06:16:31 BST