From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 23:39:48 BST
Hi Paul,
> Platt said:
> Your distinction between "real but not fundamental" is fuzzy to me. Are
> there no "real" stones as in the famous passage from Boswell's "Life of
> (Samuel) Johnson?
>
> Paul:
> Johnson's stone-kicking refutes idealism, not the MOQ. What I mean by
> "real but not fundamental" is that whilst there are no subjects or
> objects without experience, there is experience without subjects and
> objects. Therefore, if the subjective self is neither essential to nor
> ubiquitous in experience it cannot be considered fundamental - but, this
> experience also supports the belief that the self is not necessarily
> unreal. Likewise, static patterns are not fundamental, but the MOQ does not
> deny that they are real.
Please explain how it's possible for there to be experience without an
experiencer. Are we into a chicken/egg problem here?
> Platt said:
> It will take some doing to convince me that intellectuals aren't as
> self-absorbed as anybody else, if that's your point.
>
> Paul:
> No, that's not my point. You seem to have misunderstood me because you
> misunderstand the MOQ's terminology. When you say, "intellectuals," you are
> using the word as a noun. In the MOQ, "intellectual" is used as an
> adjective to describe a category of static quality. "An intellectual," like
> anyone else, is composed of static patterns from all levels.
And as such is just as self-absorbed as anyone else.
> My point is this - that which motivates *anyone* to be self-absorbed
> with reputation, wealth, ego, status etc. is static social quality.
Wealth, reputation, status are social values. But, ego is not. "The MOQ
regards the ego as a construction of all four sets of static patterns that
is capable of responding to Dynamic Quality." (Pirsig's annotations to
Copleston article.)
> Platt said:
> Self-interest propels all behavior don't you think, whether employees
> (including PhD's), CEOs, or independent contractors?
>
> Paul:
> No. I am arguing that self-interest is *biological-social* behaviour,
> not intellectual or Dynamic, and therefore doesn't propel all behaviour. If
> a PhD is behaving with self-interest, then that is biological-social
> behaviour.
But, since a PhD consists of biological-social patterns as well as
intellectual, he can hardly escape from those patterns can he? At the
highest intellectual level as described by Pirsig, " . . . it is really
unnecessary to create a meeting of the arts and sciences because in actual
practice, at the most immediate level they have never really been
separated. They have always been different aspects of the same human
purpose." (SODV) Human purpose presumes human motive which originates
from self-interest. Whenever someone finds satisfaction in doing
something, self-interest is involved.
> Platt said:
> Where does the MOQ say or imply that intellectual patterns offer freedom
> from self-interest?
>
> Paul:
> It is a logical argument. Pirsig says this about social quality:
>
> "Social quality measurements....are such things as conformity to social
> custom, popularity, ego satisfaction, and 'reputation'." [Pirsig, MOQ
> Textbook]
Since the MOQ says ego includes all four patterns capable of responding to
DQ, it would seem "ego satisfaction" cannot be strictly limited to the
social level. Biological eating, for example, satisfies the ego as does
discovering a new mathematical theorem.
> and
>
> "Fame and fortune are huge Dynamic parameters that give society its
> shape and meaning." [Lila, Ch.20]
> I argue that this is self-interest. Then, I apply the basic MOQ
> principle that each level of evolution moves away from, controls, and is
> often in opposition to, the "quality" that defines the previous level -
> therefore providing freedom from that quality. Lila is filled with examples
> of this and I'm sure you are familiar with them.
I argue that fame and fortune are not the only definitive characteristics
of self-interest.
> Of course, if you disagree with the premises of my argument then you
> will disagree with my conclusion.
Yes. My premise that self (ego) encompasses all levels plus DQ and thus
self-interest applies across the board..
> Platt said:
> According to Joseph Campbell, early man had all sorts of taboos against
> "eating, killing or screwing anything we desired." Social taboos are more
> "human nature" than the activities you describe.
>
> Paul:
> Any "taboo" you can think of is a social pattern, which was my point -
> static social quality has largely succeeded in controlling biological
> impulses. Your argument that it is incorrect to say that biological
> patterns are human nature is the same as my argument that it is incorrect
> to say that self-interest is human nature - it doesn't include the whole
> picture
We have reached the point of agreeing to disagree. We have different views
of "the whole picture."
> (Also, I'm surprised that you seem to be defending man's "basic good
> nature" as you are normally so keen to point out how this is a
> "devastating fiction.")
It's a devastating fiction that man can survive without the coercion of
society's taboos that serve to blunt the tooth and claw of biological
level forces. It's also a devastating fiction, IMO, for man to survive
without using intellectual level patterns, i.e., symbolic representations
of experience.
> Platt said:
> Seems to me Western society is still at war with biological impulses
> called "terrorism" sanctioned by radical Islam society.
>
> Paul:
> I think it's a little more complicated than the social patterns of US
> media would have you believe, but I don't want to introduce it into this
> thread - although I think self-interest is something the current Western
> leaders know a lot about, and intellect has evidently taken a back seat.
> Before you start - No, I don't condone terrorism, or more generally, I
> don't condone blowing up innocent people.
As you say, best not to get into that in this thread.
Best,
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 : Tue Jul 13 2004 - 00:56:48 BST