From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 11 2003 - 16:30:24 GMT
All:
Yesterdays 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 Pirsigs 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 orderdemocracy, trial by jury,
freedom of speech, freedom of the press." (Lila, chp. 13)
In yesterdays 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.)
Hello Platt, This is indeed worrying. But i would be careful to blame
intellect here? I think what we may have is political motivation in the guise of
intellect? Yes, indeed. The US supreme court is deteriorating, and has been doing
so for some time. In fact, as i understand the current state of play, if Bush
can replace one more supreme court judge with one of his own cronies, we may
see the US supreme court becoming religiously fundamental.
Platt:
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 wont even
go into politically correct speech codes on campuses imposed by
intellectuals.)
Mark: As i feel may be the case, the intellectual Quality of the US supreme
court has been seriously eroded. This is not an irreversible situation, but at
this moment in time, the US supreme court is not what it should be?
Platt:
But theres more to this conundrum. Who does Pirsig point to as being
responsible for Americas emphasis on freedom? To Indians--uneducated,
nonintellectual native Americans:
"And as Phaedruss 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)
Mark: I think this is a straight SQ-SQ tension and SQ-DQ evolution matter.
The tension between European and Indian values allows DQ to evolve all patterns
into greater coherence and beauty.
To further complicate matters, Pirsig attributes freedom not only to
intellect and to intellects opposite, but to something indefinable
called "Dynamic Quality:"
"Its (DQs) only perceived good is freedom and its only perceived evil
is static quality itselfany 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 speechthe literate, the illiterate,
and something beyond both--Dynamic Quality.
Mark: Indians are very good at holding onto the cutting edge of the moment.
Therefore, the Indian will speak freely and openly in response to Quality. The
European lies through his/her back teeth in order to maintain social nicety.
(Forked tongue.)
(Digression: Squonk is basically an Indian at heart; he will open his gob
before thinking about it!)
So, maybe we could say that the US supreme court has become a bit more
European of late, and is declaring open free speech a no-no?
Platt:
Ive long held a suspicion that Pirsigs 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 Pirsigs thesis.
Mark: It's a matter of fine balance - the sweet spot? In that coherence lies
beauty and dynamic?
Your country is a great country, but i urge you to think about how your
leaders are letting the American people down atrociously, and it could get allot
worse if the US supreme court becomes lickspittle to the political rulers. It
cannot be allowed to happen.
Platt:
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 intellects
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 Courts scholarly attack on
free speech rights.
Mark: There you have it in a nutshell; the intellectual Quality of the US
supreme court members may have been diluting over time to the point where alarm
bells may be heard? I know the situation is concerning the British media,
because the make-up of the US supreme court has been covered on the BBC's 'News
night' programme - a high quality, unbiased reporting team in my view.
Platt:
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 Yorks never been committed to any
preservation of its static patterns. Its 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. Its 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 Im afraid when it
comes to society, their instinct is to "control."
Platt
Mark: I understand you find the Intellectual intervention in some socialist
countries to be questionable Platt. But i would regard Mayor Julienne's Zero
tolerance stance on NY crime to be an attempt to support the social cohesion of
NY by suppressing the Biological disrupting element? That was an Intelligently
implemented pattern of action which some would argue made NY less exciting? I
can't think who would have NY return to it's Starsky and Hutch image? Maybe
Starsky and Hutch fans? ;)
All the best,
Mark
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 - 19:34:03 GMT