From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 09:20:55 BST
Hi Platt
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.
Paul previously said:
> Second, given the above, I think the MOQ defines "little self" as
static
> patterns from all levels and "self-interest" as static
biological-social
> quality - i.e. biological pleasure and satisfaction mixed with a
> preoccupation with social status, ego and wealth.
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.
My point is this - that which motivates *anyone* to be self-absorbed
with reputation, wealth, ego, status etc. is static social quality.
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.
> Paul previously said:
> As above, I think it is a completely real motivating force that fits
> neatly into the biological and social levels of evolution.
Platt said:
And not intellectual? I don't think many PhD's would qualify as Mother
Teresas.
Paul:
See above, this is irrelevant.
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]
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.
Of course, if you disagree with the premises of my argument then you
will disagree with my conclusion.
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
(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.")
Paul previously said:
> Society
> has largely succeeded in controlling these biological impulses but it
seems
> clear to me that intellect has not yet managed to control man's
obsession
> with social quality.
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.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 12 2004 - 10:02:52 BST