MD Intellect attacks free speech

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Thu Dec 11 2003 - 15:46:12 GMT

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Intellect attacks free speech"

    All:

    Yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to ban certain forms of
    political speech 60 days prior to an election has motivated me to take
    a second look at Pirsig’s assertion that the ideal of free speech
    constitutes a victory of the intellectual level over the social level:

    "Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
    intellectual order over the social order—democracy, trial by jury,
    freedom of speech, freedom of the press." (Lila, chp. 13)

    In yesterday’s Supreme Court decision we see intellect stepping in to
    muzzle free speech. Indeed, in communist and socialist countries, i.e.,
    countries supposedly "intellectually guided," free speech is usually
    curtailed, often completely. (Some socialist European countries have
    laws banning so-called "hate" speech.)

    So on the one hand we have Pirsig crediting intellect for removing the
    shackles from what one can say in public while on the other hand we see
    an intellectual Supreme Court and societies under intellectual control
    clamping down public speech like the Victorians of old. (We won’t even
    go into politically correct speech codes on campuses imposed by
    intellectuals.)

    But there’s more to this conundrum. Who does Pirsig point to as being
    responsible for America’s emphasis on freedom? To Indians--uneducated,
    nonintellectual native Americans:

    "And as Phaedrus’s studies got deeper and deeper, he saw that it was to
    this conflict between European and Indian values, between freedom and
    order, this his study should be directed." (Lila, chp. 3)

    To further complicate matters, Pirsig attributes freedom not only to
    intellect and to intellect’s opposite, but to something indefinable
    called "Dynamic Quality:"

    "Its (DQ’s) only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil
    is static quality itself—any pattern of one-sided fixed values that
    tries to contain and kill the ongoing free force of life." (Lila, chp.
    9)

    Three separate and competing forces in the MOQ are cited as being
    responsible for the ideal of free speech—the literate, the illiterate,
    and something beyond both--Dynamic Quality.

    I’ve long held a suspicion that Pirsig’s attribution of democracy, free
    speech, trial by jury and freedom of the press to intellect was
    questionable, especially when he identified communist and socialist
    countries as "intellectually guided" and stated unequivocally that the
    "Metaphysics of Quality supports this dominance of intellect over
    society." (Lila, chp. 22) Seeing how this "dominance" suppresses free
    speech casts doubt on this part of Pirsig’s thesis.

    When you have a court packed with so-called intellectuals deciding that
    the U.S. Constitution provides for unrestricted sodomy (about which the
    Constitution says nothing) but allows restrictions on political speech
    (which the Constitution expressly forbids), questioning intellect’s
    legitimacy in controlling society seems not only appropriate, but
    vitally necessary to anyone who cherishes individual liberty. Even the
    radical right Rush Limbaugh and the radical left American Civil
    Liberties Union agree on wrongness of the Court’s scholarly attack on
    free speech rights.

    An aesthetic approach to the issue finds the rough and tumble of free
    political speech immensely satisfying in the same way that Pirsig loves
    the dynamics of New York City:

    "That, Phaedrus thought, is how the MOQ explains the incredible
    contrasts of the best and the worst one sees here. Both exist here in
    such terrific intensity because New York’s never been committed to any
    preservation of its static patterns. It’s always ready to change.
    Whether you are or not. This is what creates its horror and that is
    what creates its power. Its strength is its looseness. It’s the freedom
    to be so awful that gives it the freedom to be so good." (Lila, chp.
    17)

    Would that all intellectuals understood that! But I’m afraid when it
    comes to society, their instinct is to "control."

    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



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 11 2003 - 15:44:35 GMT