From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 19:37:21 BST
Paul
Your arguments are not convincing me.
Only from the perspective of the individual
can the rest of reality emerge as its Other.
The world-individual dualism appears on
4th level together and inseperably. In the
context of this duality the gap/clearing
emerges into which pours/becomes intellectual
creations moving from DQ to SQ.
The intellectual patterns are characterised
in the space between language/individual/world.
Make any sense.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paul@turnerbc.co.uk>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 1:49 PM
Subject: RE: MD the metaphysics of free-enterprise
> Hi Platt
>
> (Apologies if you get this twice, but there seems to be something wrong
> with the mail servers somewhere along the line.)
>
> > Paul previously said:
> >I disagree with your assertion that culture is
> > identical with the social level. In the MOQ, culture is defined as
> social
> > *and* intellectual patterns.
> >
> > "I think a culture should be defined as social patterns plus
> > intellectual patterns." [Pirsig, LILA'S CHILD Note 47]
>
> Platt replied:
> Except Pirsig also said:
>
> "A culture can be defined as a network of social patterns of value."
> (Lila, 8)
>
> and:
>
> "The social patterns in the next box down (marked "Social Patterns)
> include such institutions as family, church and government. They are the
> patterns of culture that the anthropologist and sociologist study."
> (SODV)
>
> Paul:
> Okay, but in the "insanity" section, from which you derive your
> intellect=individual argument, he is using culture in the sense of
> social and intellectual patterns. This is evident when he says things
> such as, "normal cultural intellectual patterns," and, "The deviant
> dangerous source of illegal cultural patterns is first identified, then
> isolated and finally destroyed as a cultural entity. That's what mental
> hospitals are partly for. And also heresy trials. They protect the
> culture from foreign ideas that if allowed to grow unchecked could
> destroy the culture itself. Insanity is an intellectual pattern."
>
> As such, my argument still stands. That section is about one set of 3rd
> and 4th level values conflicting with another set of 3rd and 4th level
> values as opposed to a conflict between 3rd and 4th levels values per
> se.
>
> > Paul previously said:
> > Yes, but Pirsig's view is that the *source* of change is not a static
> > force at all. His primary metaphysical division came from the insight
> > that there has to be another source of change, *outside of* the values
> that
> > comprise culture (and "static" individuals), and he identifies this as
> > Dynamic Quality, not the 4th static level.
>
> Platt said:
> Yes, but only a "living being" can respond to DQ.
>
> " . . . societies and thoughts and principles themselves are no more
> than sets of static patterns. These patterns can't by themselves
> perceive or adjust to Dynamic Quality. Only a living being can do that."
> (Lila, 13)
>
> Paul:
> I don't see how this is relevant to your argument that the 4th level is
> an "individual level." Nowhere is "a living being" equated with
> intellect, or a single static level of any description.
>
> Platt said:
> DQ doesn't create change all by itself. It works through individuals by
> motivating them to change, individuals like the brujo, the contrarians
> and yes, Pirsig himself.
>
> Paul:
> I think Dynamic Quality does *create* change all by itself, static
> quality on the other hand, maintains the changes. Therefore, I would
> argue that Dynamic Quality "works through," i.e. creates and changes the
> *static patterns* from all levels from which individuals are composed.
>
> What I think you have done is confuse the conflict between Dynamic and
> static quality with the conflict between the 3rd and 4th levels. I think
> you have done this because you place "the individual" as the highest
> point of static evolution. But if you start to ask, "Should the
> individual be free to do whatever he wishes?" and the answer your
> metaphysics necessarily provides is, "Yes," one can ask if rape or
> murder is amongst those rights, or stealing and burglary - after all,
> all of these things are done by individuals and it would be, according
> to your metaphysics, immoral for a society to stop this individual.
>
> The MOQ, on the other hand, divides your individual into 4 levels and
> consequently defends intellectual freedom from society, but not
> biological freedom. But this intellectual freedom is also limited by the
> rules that govern that level and also cannot bring about change itself.
> Therefore, I would, as in previous posts, suggest that an individual is
> free in terms of Dynamic Quality, as is neatly summed up in LILA:
>
> "To the extent that one's behaviour is controlled by static patterns of
> quality it is without choice. But to the extent that one follows Dynamic
> Quality, which is undefinable, one's behaviour is free." [LILA Ch.12]
>
> In the discussions of the brujo, contrarians, insanity and the death
> penalty that you refer to in defence of your "individual level," it is
> Dynamic Quality which is central and not any particular level.
>
> Paul previously said:
> > On the other hand, money can limit intellectual evolution by
> > controlling research and can give social patterns the upper hand in
> > intellectual-social conflicts such as democracy e.g. "cash for
> questions,"
> > campaign funding etc.
>
> Platt said:
> I don't understand "cash for questions."
>
> Paul:
> The phrase, I think, comes from the practice of members of Parliament
> (in the UK, substitute your equivalent) accepting substantial cash
> sums/gifts from "clients" to ask certain questions in Parliament.
>
> Platt said:
> It's because of clarity, precision, magnitude and elegance of one's
> ideas allowed to bear fruit in a nation that covets individual freedom
> that we, in the U.S., enjoy such a dynamic world.
>
> Paul:
> Not being from the U.S., I can't really comment on this claim. (It's a
> shame, though, that certain intelligence reports, evidently lacking in
> both clarity and precision, were also allowed to "bear fruit.")
>
> Also, for the sake of clarity and precision, are you saying that
> intellectual quality is the dominant measure of success in the U.S.? Or
> are you substituting "individual" for "intellectual" and then saying
> that individual quality is the dominant measure of success in the U.S.?
>
> Platt said:
> As Pirsig says, we've accomplished this in spite of our ignorance of DQ.
> My point was how much better it might be if more of us became aware of
> DQ's reality as well as the rational morality of the MOQ instead of
> amoral SOM metaphysics that pervades our "culture."
>
> Paul:
> I agree with that!
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Mon Jul 26 2004 - 20:16:53 BST