From: Mati Palm-Leis (mpalm@merr.com)
Date: Wed Nov 26 2003 - 03:49:33 GMT
Paul and MOQ folks,
First I would like to thank you replies. They have given me the
opportunity to sharpen my thinking. However I suffer a learning
disability that manifests itself in a way that it takes several hours to
compose one post. Even with this effort many grammatical errors occur.
As a full time school administrator, doctorial student and full time
father I think you might understand I have limited time to share, but
sharing what I can has been wonderful experience. I hope to continue in
the future but soon I will have to retire till the holidays when I might
have some extra time.
Paul previously:
I think democracy is described, in MOQ terms, as a part of an intellect
vs. society moral code and is not entirely an intellectual pattern of
values (except as a concept or ideology). In fact, I think that the
application of democracy is most visible as a social pattern (of
government) - one that, in principle, does no harm to intellectual
patterns.
Mati: No problem here.
Mati previously responds:
Ok, I have grown to believe that "intellectual capacity", reverts back
to Bodvar's SOLAQI.
Paul:
Okay, then we are really discussing two different theories - I'm trying
to apply Pirsig's ideas, not Bo's. My arguments against Bo's SOLAQI are
all in the archives from this summer so I won't go into that again
except to say that I think intellect is just the conscious and
deliberate activity of constructing, manipulating or understanding
patterns of thought.
Mati: I believe Pirsig has encouraged all of us to explore his ideas and
I believe that is why the MD is so important. As far as the intellectual
level goes, I do believe it is important to find a rational
understanding. This has been a difficult process that I believe Pirsig
is struggling with as well. As far as Bo's SOLAQI I see that his ideas
do nothing to alter Pirsig Metaphysical premise, but trying to provide
rational context for the intellectual level. Your belief of intellect
represents a broad context that in end doesn't provide the latch of
understanding of what intellect is. I will admit I had some issues with
Bo's concept to begin with as others have. I feel he has done a fairly
good job of rationalizing his position. In the context of MD discussion
Bo's ideas are fair game, if not MD may have failed in its ability to
promote and develop Pirsig's ideas.
Paul:
I don't disagree with this description of events. My point is simply
that whilst it may be so that there is no democracy without intellect,
it does not follow that there is no intellect without democracy. Both
democracy and fascism have social and intellectual components. I think
democracy is better than fascism because, in the intellect vs. society
struggle, it favours intellect; fascism favours society.
Mati: Agreed, well put.
Paul previously:
Also, the way I see it, the U.S. and its allies need to concentrate on
building some stable social patterns first to fill the vacuum created by
destroying the old ones.
Mati previously said:
I will disagree here. In principle it sounds right but won't get you
very far.
Paul:
What use is the ideal of democracy without the stable social patterns of
a functioning government, a respected police force, schools, press,
hospitals, employment, economy and so on?
Mati: The problem is the social patterns you mention are western
cultural phenomenon. Like a heart transplant you need to be concerned
about rejection. Suppose you have all those factors in place, chances
are without an intellectual basis they will revert back to the old
dictatorship government or something similar. But you stated schools
which I found interesting. Think about High School in the U.S. verses in
an Islamic country. I am making and educated guess that in the U.S. high
school is where there is the formal process of intellectualization for
democracy. Yes in the primary grades and middle school the social
rationalization are in place and support the process. In addition there
is the social reinforcement that exist beyond the school walls. But it
is until you come to understand the meaning and value of making and
educated decision on the leadership and laws that affect the lives of
you and others, that you understand he intellectual implications.
Democracy is only a social slogan until you understand the process and
understand the value it represents socially. You can put all the
trappings of Democracy out there and it will fail without its
intellectual value to society as part of the social structure. This is
the real value of education in a democratic state. But this all takes
time to "latch" on as an intellectual reality.
Mati previously said:
The biggest threat to Iraq and it's social structure is the threat of
intellectualization.
and
The fact is I don't think MOQ or any other intellectualization will pose
a threat. Only in cases where the religion is oppressive in nature will
intellectualization takes it's mark.
Paul:
I'm confused by this Mati, there appears to be a contradiction in your
statements. Also, I didn't say anything about intellectualisation
(although I'm not clear on what that means, particularly if you are
using Bo's definition of intellect) posing a threat to Iraq.
Mati: Sorry for the confusion. The first statement is based on the view
of Iraq's and the Islamic state. Both social structures in the battle
of rationalization of values can't muster dominance over intellectual
structures as found in a democracy. Failure to dominate in this case is
seen as threat. The second statement was a little general but I'm
driving at the point that MOQ and democracy, both intellectual patterns,
don't pose a threat to the religious social foundations. In the U.S.
with a democracy, allows religious to exist relatively peacefully to
serve the spiritual needs of individual without dominance by the
government. I know this can be debated to some degree, but as a whole it
stands true.
Your Pirsig quote is appropriate here,
"Intellect can support static patterns of society without fear of
domination by carefully distinguishing those moral issues that are
social-biological from those that are intellectual-social and making
sure there is no encroachment either way." [Lila p.345]
As to the question about intellectualization, it is fair game. Bodvar's
definition in my mind provides the seed, intellectualization provides
the fruit so to speak. As to a specific meaning on intellectualization
in regards to intellect, I am working on that project now, but it will
take a little time before I will be able to share.
Mati previously said:
What is needed in Iraq is the development of a intellectual base that
has it's roots in Islam that can sustain democracy.
Paul:
Yes, and stable social patterns to sustain the intellectual patterns.
Mati previously:
...and now occupation has a difficult time creating a rational for
"Freedom" in the minds of the Iraq's. The Iraq's will need to look
beyond the social transgression and contemplate its intellectual
freedom. I hope they can do that.
Paul:
Agreed, but Iraq can do this without "turning upon" its social patterns.
Intellect does not replace society any more than society replaces
biology. The levels aren't "eras," to be permanently left behind. This
is precisely what Pirsig is saying in the quote you provided, each level
offers freedom from the static forces below and must not be completely
undermined. Morality is not about picking one level over all others, it
is a complex struggle, a balancing act.
Mati: Well put! I might only add that this bares out the struggle this
whole process of balancing the benefits a democracy without totally
dismantling the social structure that is in place. A pretty tricky feat
indeed!
Take care,
Mati
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 : Wed Nov 26 2003 - 03:52:05 GMT