Dear Lila Squad.
PLATT.
I think this paragraph of your message says it:
> Pirsig uses standard scientific reasoning to build his MoQ. But his
> starting assumptions and intellectual framework are different. For him the
> world is not divided into subjects and objects but into Dynamic and Static
> Quality. And his intellectual framework is not "measurement" of an
> objective world independent of man but "logical fit" to a world presumed to
> consist of four evolutionary static patterns of value plus DQ in which man,
> as trustee of the intellectual level, is indispensable.
Right! The Intellectual level of MOQ is no "measurement" or
consciousness of an objective world...etc, but merely (not "mere" but
..) one reality level, which may - as you have pointed out - be
transcended, and I do seriously think that there is a mutiny already
against Intellect.
WALTER.
You can't leave before you have cleared up a mystery. You quote
Ken Clark's:
> > .... If this is so then it seems to me that perhaps we
> > should begin with universal Quality in mind and recognize that
> > human Quality should fit within the overall requirements of
> > universal Quality. I suspect that such an approach would alleviate
> > many of the value and morality problems we are having when we view
> > the human situation in isolation
and say:
> This is exactly what I feel and for which I welcomed Keith's post
What exactly is the "universal quality" as different from "human
quality"?
You go on to say (to Roger):
> .....
> I agree with him in so far that I see that human morality is more
> complex. I think this is due to the fact that human beings are
> conscious and therefore can foresee and control future patterns.
Human beings conscious..????? What sets the MOQ apart from SOM is
that it rejects the intellect-as-mind-as-consciousness-as-awareness
notion. Humans able to foresee the future!? Well, a bear that builds
a lard for the winter or birds that migrate in the fall do also
foresee the future. To explain it SOM calls it "instincts" in its
usual slanderous way, but overlook that we are just as instinctive
in 99.9 percent of our conduct, not least when we - as Platt says -
flare up in anger when out pet theory is attacked.
All right that was my little show :-). Perhaps "conscious" can be
accepted in the sense that the quality hierarchy is a rise in value,
but with the qualification that Intellect is STATIC all the same and
may be superseded by a "new consciousness". I may not do you justice
Walter; perhaps you see this, I just like an Jesuit see the devil
rising its head whenever the term "consciousness" is used.
XCTO
(we never got the office supply figured out?) You wrote:
> I have stated on many occasions about the nature of brain and mind.
> And no one has yet put any argument to those posts. As to the intellectual
> pattern I would try to put it simply for now and as a Squad we can
> develop it.
I have read and applauded most of what you have written and this is
no exception. I see you as one of the very few who have focussed on
the development of intellect out of Society; the most crucial aspect
that sets the MOQ apart from ANYTHING previously thought.
> The definition of Intellectual Patterns should be the pattern
> created by intellectual pursuit, namely theories or PRINCIPLE. I
> chose that word because it is more fixed than "theory" but did not
> have the social implication of the scientific word of "law."
Yes, this is just right and another way of saying what P. of ZAMM
said about ..growing impartiality..and..increasing power of
abstraction which permitted the Greeks to regard the old myths not as
revealed truth but as imaginative creations of art..
> Again, I like to look back and 'theorize' the beginning of Principle
> creation and in this historical process I use the idea that the
> first principles were choosing, organizing, and creating rituals and
> processes of passing on the best of the Social patterns. And
> anytime there were two opposing social patterns (tradition and
> change) it was either dynamically adopted or repressed or kicked out
> (excommunicated) or somesuch. As society got more complex there
> were many different places and levels of the social principles and
> eventually there was a hierarchy of these principles in a Social
> organization. Then came Socrates and the Sophists and the SOM split
> became official. I'm not saying that's where SOM started because
> the Social Ruler always had many advisors before then, be it
> economic, spiritual, or ethical.
This I also buy wholesalely. That the process is of an immense longer
time scale than you let it sound like, you are the first to admit I
guess, but YES! Nowhere in your presentation do you imply
the trite SOMish notion that Q-Intellect is "awakening to
consciousness" or "awareness of objective reality". Quality's
intellect was once social value that grew - Grew - GREW and G R E W
until it suddenly was a morality all of itself that no longer could
serve Society. It suddenly saw through the social-mythological veil.
The first veil to fall was the Greek and Roman Gods, then Society
struck back in the form of the Dark Ages, but the next to fall was
the Christian mythology and now Intellect has taken over the Western
mind completely and is knocking on the Islamic doors.
> Now, this is where we get juicy...and where the MOQ best helps. The
> Intellectual patterns that still guide and judge over the Social
> patterns in a process that goes on and on. But with the MOQ I think
> that divorce between what we think about on social issues and how we
> reason in the scientific village and how we talk about when we argue
> philosophical and moral issues disappears and we are finally on the
> chessboard. I see many thread and paths to follow so i will stop
> here and simply state that ALL social groups are in this MOQ and
> thus all use intellectual patterns in their own little corners to
> develop the best point of view that dynamically states reality to
> them.
Even a louder YES. This is an observation of great depth. As
said to Platt, with the MOQ some new kind of "consciousness" is
stirring. It MUST be; it's impossible to see a reality from within,
one must step outside it. That is what Phaedrus did and it was an
unique view - in spite of what Donny says - THAT INTELLECT IS A
VEIL TOO.
ROGER.
You have delivered so much of value lately that I feel like a swine
before pearls. Yet, I understood and liked your first version of the
Morality Chart the latest version I am not able to grasp.
You wrote earlier:
> Personally, I have been amazed by the deviation from these MOQ
> concepts this month. We started with several rebels trying to put
> social values on top of intellect, then several members tried to put
> socialist egalitarianism forward as a system intellectually superior
> to freedom. Next, morality itself was dismissed as too 'relative'.
> Several folks are now saying we should follow gut or instinct , and
> the latest assault accuses Pirsig of being a sexist due to his use
> of plot devices. (By the way am I the only one that sees the common threads of
> misunderstandings in the above?)
No, you are not alone, I joined you in your sigh over the latest
development in the morality debate, but the Irish revolution petered
out and Mary "recanted" :-) so it's all harmony...as long as it
lasts.
I smiled at your telling how you wrote comments in the margin of the
printed posts, not all of which were posted. I know..phew! The
Scientific American article sounded interesting, I'll buy it for my
weekend reading.
GUNN
Thanks for admonishing Jonathan for his "anatomy" lessons and thanks
to Jonathan for accepting it.
Have a nice weekend
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:42 BST