From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:10:26 GMT
Steve and Group
21 Jan. you wrote:
> Bo responded to DMB:
> > I won't go into the conclusions you draw from this - they are rock
> > solid - but only comment on the "...if society wins, what's going
> > to be left of intellect?" If intellect's value is "manipulation of
> > symbols" does that mean that this will be prohibited and police will
> > come to your door to check that you don't "manipulate symbols"?
Steve:
> Note that it would be at least as absurd to insert your definition of
> intellect and say "If intellect's value is [the S/O divide], does that
> mean that this will be prohibited and police will come to your door to
> check that you don't [categorize experience as subjective or
> objective]?" See, that's no good either.
My point is that all the "patterns" that Pirsig lists as intellectual
(free speech, freedom of press, trial by jury ....etct.) which would
be jeopardized in the situation he refers to are derivatives of the
pursuit of what is objecively true (diferent from subjective
opinion) while I can't see how "manipulation of symbols" can lead
to democracy and its many aspects (it's simply language/thinking,
but nothing about HOW one thinks) .
> You haven't pointed out a weakness in "manipulations of symbols" for
> defining intellectual patterns.
I just did!
> You've only pointed out a problem
> with your one value "value of X" definitions of the levels as opposed
> to the types of patterns understanding that I have been recommending
> to you.
Please explain.
> Note that "the value of truth" however does not fair so badly in the
> same substitution: "If intellect's value is [truth], does that mean
> that this will be prohibited and police will come to your door to
> check that you don't [say something socially unacceptable but true]?"
> Yes, in fact that's exactly what it means.
Right the "value of truth" does not fare badly at all, this is the
isthmus between our views I believe, I was writing about it, but
got caught in the logic debate with JoVo and Paul
> I still can't see how you get mileage out of equating intellect with
> the S/O divide in recognizing intellectual patterns...
It is the VALUE of that distinction as I have said a million times.
While adding "value" to manipulation doesn't do any difference.
> You added:
> > What Pirsig means is that intellect's (individual rights) domination
> Are we to read the domination of "the S/O divide"?
At the social level the individual is subordinate to the "society".
With the coming of intellect (and observing the upper level's
constant tendency to "thwart" the former) the individual's freedom
versus "society" became a central issue. The irony is as Pirsig
points out in LILA, that the "individual" has two aspects the
biological organism and the social being, thus the Campus
"eggheads" wanting to subdue society "joined forces" with biology
...something that created the havoc. However, the Q-view
requires it to be offset even to intellect.
> > would increase until the community is a mess. This I believe
> > proved true in New York, but when things reached a certain stage of
> > decline, "intellect" came to its senses and a tough police chief was
> > put in office who struck down on the street "freedoms".
> The S/O divide came to its senses ?
;-) ... the S/O-intellect sees the consequenses of its value being
carried to its extreme. While "manipulation" ....??
Yours sincerely
Bo
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 Jan 22 2004 - 12:12:01 GMT