From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Aug 01 2004 - 21:16:11 BST
Paul, Platt and all thread readers:
Paul said to Platt:
.......................it makes no sense to agree that, on the one hand,
individuals are composed of static patterns from *all levels* but, on
the other, an individual is the defining characteristic of *the fourth
level*. That is what I do not understand. I think you are trying to have
it both ways.
dmb says:
Exactly. The idea that the fourth level is distinguished by the individual
contradicts Pirsig's assertion that each of us is a forest of static
patterns from all levels. Not to mention his assertion that the individual
is an illusion! This confusion leads Platt to make assertions like this
one...
Platt previously explained:
> Fame and fortune are social level values. An individual can intellectually
> choose biological values, social values or intellectual values to pursue.
> His intentions are often intellectual, that is, he can rationalize his
> behavior, like gamblers and criminals do. But it's his behavior that
> determines what value level applies.
dmb continues:
Intellectually choose biological values? Rationalize like a criminal? I
agree that a person's values are reflected in the choices made and actions
taken, but its way too confusing to refer to any choice as an intellectual
one. I mean, people make choices all the time without intellectual values
coming into the equation. I think we can rightly call it an intellectual
choice only when intellectual values are chosen. And we can't call it an
intellectual choice just because a person made the choice. One can choose
from any part of the complex ecology of the total (little) self and its the
part chosen, not the chooser that matters. I mean, even if Einstein
"decides" to get laid or rob a bank, its still not intellectual.
Platt said:
What puts the individual at the top level is his role as the source of
intellect, of ideas, without which the MOQ doesn't work or even exist at
all. (I don't think ZMM and Lila were written by a committee.)
Paul replied:
Well, if an individual is composed of patterns from all levels, and the
most evolved and therefore superior part of an individual is that they
are a collection of ideas, then "intellectual level" is a much clearer
and precise definition of the top level than "individual level," is it
not?
dmb says:
Exactly. If an individual is composed of all four levels, its confusing to
use "individual" to characterize just one of the four.
Paul continued:
The other thing to consider is a point I made before - that intellectual
patterns, the most successful ones, are not individual at all, they are
the patterns that seem to "transcend" individual opinion, as Socrates
tried to argue. (Of course, he thought this was because truth was some
kind of revelation from a divine intelligence that we may recollect.
However, in MOQ terms, with all of the caveats about Absolute Truth, the
general truths of intellectual quality can be said to "transcend" the
particular interests of social quality.)
dmb says:
Right. This is where the notion of SINGLE individuals opposed to COLLECTIVE
society begins to break down. Its just a fact that intellectual static
patterns are as real as rocks and trees. There is a structure and strength
to high quality intellectual patterns. They're like living things and
they're like precision parts. And, as Paul explains, intellectual stability
and progress both depend on a highly discipline collective effort. In other
words, intellectual quality and individuality don't necessarily go together
and in everyday reality, individuality among intellectuals can be quite
destructive. Even creative thinkers are creating WITHIN a higly structured
and collective world of static pattens...
Paul said:
And from a practical perspective, imagine trying to plot a trajectory to
Mars with a bunch of people who all had their own little theory of
physics - "Gravity? My system doesn't need gravity! It's the 17th
dimension you have to account for...." I know there are many competing
theories, and this is part of evolution, but one or two usually succeed
for long periods - not one per person.
dmb says:
Again, I think that's quite right. New theories come from creative thinkers
now and then, but mostly these thinkers have to first get with the program,
they have to be educated enough to be familiar with the current theories and
such. Its a building process that requires on to understand and then add to
an existing structure. New additions are added all the time without any
major changes. There are a number of times in history that seemingly small
improvements have an impact wide enough and profound enough to constitute a
paradigm shift, the shift to a genuinely different worldview, but these can
be counted on one hand. Even when a creative thinker comes along with a
better idea, it simply doesn't have any staying power unless and until the
idea is accepted and adopted collectively. If it sticks they call her a
genuis, but if it doesn't, she was just wrong or crazy.
And so it is with the intellectual static patterns that are the MOQ. It has
precision parts but is also like a living thing in its own right. Either
way, you gotta respect its integrity, its shape and structure before you
even BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT making improvements. I think that anything less
demonstrates a lack of respect for intellectual values, not just Pirsig or
the MOQ. It like the data-faking scientist. He demonstrate a lack of love
for the scientific process itself, not just the particular experiment
involved. Don't you think?
And if that data-faking scientist fudged to get noticed, get published, get
rich or become famous, has he not made a social level choice? Hasn't he put
social values over intellectual values and thereby made an immoral,
anti-intellectual choice? I think so. To call this an intellectual choice or
to equate individuality with intellectual values is way too confusing. It
mischaracterizes the nature of the 4th level and vastly overestimates the
importance of the individual. It seems to put an illusion at the highest and
most central place in the MOQ. In short, it demonstrates a lack of respect
for the MOQ's moral and ontological structures.
Thanks,
dmb
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 : Sun Aug 01 2004 - 22:22:26 BST