Hi Platt, Dave B., Andre, Gary, Bo, Squonk, Scott and all (in no
particular order),
Let me start by repeating my opinion that led to this thread:
It is not useful to regard intellect as its own separate level - rather
intellect is felt in the entire fabric of the MoQ from the inorganic
level upwards.
Let me start with GARY
<<<GARY'S RESPONSE: I think you are mixing words with things.
Everything that
humans consider, all our ideas, views, beleifs, theories, etc are words.
Human inventions. They are not the "things", the non-verbal stuff of
matter
and energy patterns that exist even if there were no words. >>>
If you have one set of "real" things and another set of "ideas", you
have what Aristototle objected to about Plato.
Aristotle is very pragmatic, but wrong. Without generalizing
observations as patterns (ideas), then the world is a senseless jumble
of never-ending unique experiences. You need the patterns to make sense
- and this is exactly what intellect does. The very grouping of ideas
into different realms (levels) is part of this process.
Andre, I think that last point is the reason why we need levels (or some
other way of organising patterns) in the first place. My objection is
the separation of laws and hypotheses etc. into their own "intellectual"
level.
I think it is best to regard all the laws, ideas and hypotheses relating
to each level as a part of that level. Otherwise we end up making a
separation between a material world and a world of ideas; I find that
just as objectionable as the Mind vs. Matter split.
You see, Bo, I am not out to destroy the MoQ! I think that the concept
of the intellectual LEVEL undermines the MoQ..
PLATT
Since you live in Israel right in the middle of a social vs.
intellectual
conflict, your denial of an intellectual level seems to me unimaginable.
. . .
DMB says:
Well, I'd characterize the conflict in Israel as a clash between two
differing sets of social patterns, but otherwise I completely agree with
Platt on this.
Platt and Dave, much as I stand to gain by classifying the
Israel-Palestine clash as Intellectual vs. Social patterns, I think it
is a poor way to argue. Dave, I came down on you previously for phrasing
many of your arguments thus:
"My position is intellectual, yours is social, therefore the MoQ says
that I win . . ."
I find that approach self-defeating.
DMB
Denying the fourth level "pulls
the rug out from under Pirsig's analysis" in the biggest way. It
destroys
the MOQ's ability to work as a moral compass [snip]. . .
JM's conclusion would effectively put fascism,
fundamentalism and other hair-brained reactionary movements on the same
level as democracy, rights, pluralism, and the sciences. . . .
David, I'll answer that by going to an old proposition of mine - that
the mediation of conflicts between patterns on the same level is settled
by the next level up. Thus, biology decides that potassium is good and
sodium bad, that moderate temperatures are good and extremes bad, that
sugar is to be consumed, cyanide to be avoided etc. Similarly, society
dictates the value of agriculture (selecting some plants and animals
over others), medical care for the weak, settling disputes by
non-violent arbitration etc.
The obvious extension is that Intellect decides which social patterns
are best - that was the original basis of the "next level arbitration"
idea.
But this isn't quite right. The analysis of how biology chooses between
inorganic patterns is ultimately an intellectual process.
It is always intellect that recognises the conflict, and then "invents"
the next level pattern that resolves it. It is intellect in the guise
of a pattern called a cell that recognises that sugar is "good" and
cyanide is "bad". It is all down to judgements of Quality.
Now the reason that I regard fascism as bad is that it is a low-quality
political idea (how's that for tautology).
It contradicts many of the "high quality" ideas I value, and has
demonstrably lead to appalling human costs.
There is no shortage of intellectual arguments to support the point, but
it is never intellectual patterns that replace the social patterns - it
is better social patterns that replace bad ones (we hope).
The only discomfort I have in rejecting Intellect as a Level is Pirsig's
extensive writing on the new intellectual age that came into being after
WW1. I think he is correct that something DID change. IMO, until the
industrial revolution hit, the major philosophy driving resolution of
social conflicts was conservatism. The institutions of social power were
mainly engaged in keeping things as they were.
That changed greatly during the Victorian age, and "progress" became
important. Thus academia, particularly science, as the provider of the
tools for planning and implementing social change became increasingly
important. WW1 perhaps marks the point when the old social order reached
its lowest ebb. The emergence of a new social order reflects not so much
a new level but a shift in philosophy, a change in the application of
intellect.
Does that clarify my thoughts?
Jonathan
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:25 BST