From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 21:38:40 BST
Squonk, Scott, all,
> sq: In my view, intellect is very much older than recorded history. In
> my view, intellect and intelligence are the same thing. In my view,
> the intellectual level of the MoQ existed and evolved simultaneously
> with the social level for a period of time very much older than
> recorded history. In my view, All levels are continuing to evolve
> simultaneously, and interacting simultaneously.
Steve:
I agree with this except in that it seems to suggest that there were no
social patterns without intellectual patterns and vice versa. Social
patterns existed long before intellectual patterns evolved. Otherwise it
would not make sense to think of the MOQ as an evolutionary hierarchy.
squonk: I agree with you Steve.
Scott:
> Yes. My objection to the idea that the social and intellectual levels
> are simultaneous is that it doesn't explain how the fourth level is in
> conflict with the third.
>
> squonk: They have to be simultaneous in order to be in conflict.
Steve:
Such a conflict makes no sense if the levels are discrete.
squonk: Oil may float discretely on water and yet harmonise its motion with
it?
'Lila's Child' annotation 52 (published version):
'I think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in which
one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing social patterns
and the other side intellectually opposes the existing social patterns.'
Squonk, can you see that the intellectual level evolves out of the social
level as the social level evolves out of the biological level and the
biological level evolves out of the inorganic level? Doesn't such a
hierarchy have aesthetic value to you?
squonk: I agree with you Steve.
When Pirsig talks about the intellectual level transcending the social level
after Homer, he is talking about the intellectual level going off to serve
itself rather than to sustain society just as at one time the social level
did the same to form the Giant though its original purpose was to help
people survive.
squonk: I agree with you Steve.
It seems important to me that these levels are viewed as discrete and
hierarchical. For those who do not see the social level existing prior to
the intellectual level, how do you justify the hierarchy of values? I.e. How
do you know the intellectual level is a higher level than the social level?
Thanks,
Steve
squonk: I agree with you.
The hierarchy of values is justified to me by empirical evidence. The
evidence i find compelling is the order of Dynamic response of intellectual value.
Intellectual value can respond much more Dynamically than Social value.
Also, intellectual values have helped to stabilise and contribute to the
value of social patterns. In my view, it has only been since the domination of
science over church that intellectual values have really begun to shift away from
the social.
Another compelling note is one of aesthetic. This is a tricky one, because it
would not stand up in a court of law or a science lab for it to be recognised
as such? But i have been working on that.
All the best,
squonk
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 21 2003 - 21:39:26 BST