XCTO COMMENDS DONNYS ADDITION AND POINTS OUT A POSSIBLE NEW LOGICAL CONSTRUCT
OF MOQ. Also uses a strand of his line of thinking to stir up some
controversy - idea - WOMEN DID NOT DERSERVE TO VOTE UNTIL 1920.
In a message dated 12/4/98 8:24:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu (Donny) writes:
> What I would like to add to this is that Intellectual value
>rhythms manafest out of social moral rhythms and so always have a social
>ellement to them (ie. Living species are made up of "matter"; societies
>are made from an organic species; and intellctual "truth" is made from
>society.)
YES, this is absolutely true. Now, is it possible that the fragmentation of
disciplines such as math/science, language study, art, music, athletics, etc
creates different social patterns which in turns creates different and
competing intellectual patterns (i guess i should say POINTS OF VIEW (POVs)?
This is an interesting hypothesis in that there would be a grouping of
overlapping POVs that would continually be growing and shrinking as the social
groups pick up or change or disregard current POV's. There would be some
consensus (such as in the field of basic mathematics) but obviously there will
be many fringe groups (such as in art and music). These amorphous POV will be
held by many groups, but may change depending on intellectual quality events
in the different social groups. My example is Copernicus. The Greeks knew
that the world was round, and if they survived all of Europe would have had
that POV. But the common view was that the world was flat. I would say that
there was a consensus of intellectual patterns of a Flat Earth within all the
social groups. BUT when Copernicus and others gave their arguments, the
scientific community agreed and that social group changed their POV.
Gradually other groups changed too, until a couple of decades ago when the
Catholic Church finally agreed with this (some time in the 1970's
---really!!!). As a result that single intellectual POV grew to be a
consensus (except to the "Flat Earthers") Hey, Lila was a group and POV of
one...
> (1) ONLY a society that has ideals (SocPoVs) suitable to
>intellectual morals will have IntPoVs. The *society* (as a collective)
>must hold that there is a better way to settle argumants than social
>statuss... that anyone can deduce and realize the -- objective -- truth
>regardless of what they're station may be
> Here in the South we have a term (and parden my use of it) that
> still creeps around in our discourse: "trick niger." Until (basically)
>recently there was a great prejaduce that black people were basically
>dumber than white people. They were somewhere in-between animals and
>"real" human-beings. So, whenever it did turn-up that there was a black
> man who was of some exceptional intellegence (maybe he'd read Emmerson or
> could do multiplication in his head... or was a classically trained
> musician) it was assumed -- just naturally taken for granted -- by
>(typical, white) Southerners that this was not a black man of exceptional
>intelligence or eduacation... but a "trick niger." There was some kind of
>trick involved; like Roy Roger's horse, Trigger, who could (apparently) do
>arithmatic by stomping his foot.
> Only since about WWI has it come to be held, popualerly, that
>there is an -objective- ellement to the truth -- that truth stands
>independent of race, creed, or income... such that, now, blacks, women,
>Native Americans, and everybody can be potential, suitable judges of
>truth. This is a SOCIAL value that must be in place in order for
>Intellectual rhythms to flower. John Leonard once said that the first 200
>years of American history can be seen as the gradual expansion of the "we"
>in "We the people..." (This is why when someone [Fintan] suggests that
>Social morality should re-dominate intellectual freedom/objectivity, I git
>a bit miffed because I see this as an attack on the ideals my nation was
>founded on.)
Now this is where i get controversial. This idea is great! I completely
agree with Donny. Now let's take a look at why women were not allowed the
rights of men from this perspective. The woman's position in life in most
human history up to the Renaissance was of homemaker and child bearer. After
that, royalty educated both men and women. Later most men were educated and
much later women too. This is another example of IntPOV on top of social
groups. In the US democracy in 1787 they created this thing called the
Constitution. They did not allow women to vote or blacks to be free (this is
an interesting call to discuss as well-done only to create a unified
north/south country). But at the same time they created equal education for
all (a uniquely Unitied States concept even today).
I think that this was a correct choice in that women were not educated enough
to make proper democratic choices at that time (the intellectual POV). But
the change was made in the social groups to enable the social groups to reach
the educational level for them to fight for their rights. I personally think
that women reached that point in the mid 1800's but the intellectualPOV
changes still didn't complete the social adjustment necessary for it to happen
-the consensus of enough Social Groups wasn't reached. This idea of consensus
and the related idea of exception , to me, is a very important POV. Hey, if
you want to respond to my idea, please, START A NEW PROGRAM LINE. If you want
to critique my POV idea i guess we could argue in the current program. What
do you think?
> Pirsig emphasizes the Greeks, but I think he's giving them too
>much credit. I think the Intelectual level is -- primarily -- the child
>of the Enlightenment philosophs (Voltare and Rousseau) and the
>philosopher/poloticians who put their ideas into effect (Jefferson,
>Franklin and Adams). Intellectual morality grew out of Western Europe and
>the collonies... and I'll let my countrey take a lot of the credit for
>leading the way, if you don't mind. (But, as I've said before, this
>Ethno-centric/Euro-centric view of history does bug me -- and the more I
>read Spengler's revisionist history *The Decline of the West* the more and
>more suspicious I become.)
> (2) I emphasize that IntPoVs are a *means of communication*.
>Dwight Van de Vate (a philosopher just retired from my university -- and
I> mean a real philosopher and not a philosologist) once said, "You'll get
>a lot farther if you stop thinking about science as a window into the mind
>of God, and think of it as, primarily, a way in which we talk to one
>another."
> The intellectual morals are the rules of (scientifc/achademic/
>judicial/etc.) discourse. The intellectual values are the values of PROOF.
>A proof is a way you settle an argument -- spicifically: It is whatever
>your society holds is the best, most socialaly accepted, most MORAL way to
>settle the argument. If we have a disagreement, I can employ a number of
>ways to convince you I am right. I can bribe you. Blackmail you. I could
>charm you w/ my wit and charisma. I could send Knuckles and Rocko over to
>your house to beat the crap out of you. But we (as a society) hold that
>there is a best way to settle this. That is: for me to offer you a
>rational, intelligable, sound proof. So, think of a court of law. The
>jurry's job (moral imperative) is to be objective, intellectual beings. To
>not be swayed by charisma, money, intemidation... but to way "the facts"
>and come to a logical conclusion. And again I'll stress: This is the
>Enlightenment ideal -- not the Greek. (Socrates is rarly ever rational.
>He's a sophist -- the best of them -- and he uses every little rhetorical
>trick in the book. Any *Saterday Night Live* fans out there? Socrates
>comes across like Phil Harman's "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer.")
> So, point #2 is: Intellectual value rhythms only arise among
>multiple persons (person = a social entity). Robinson Caruso on his
>island, building a hut and fire and snares to catch food... this is NOT an
>example of IntPoVs! Not only does IntPoVs not = mind, but it does not =
>reason/logic either. It must include this social ellement in it. My cat
>can emply reason/logic to a certain extent -- she can "figure something
>out."
> Now, before the spears start flying, I know that this is NOT
>exactly RMP's view. I've seen passages in LILA that clearly sugest IntPoVs
>are a kin to ego or mind or logic or your own picture of the world
>(contradicting my point #2) and toward the end of LILA he talks about
>non-Western IntPoVs, spicifically Native American IntPoVs (contradicting
>my point #1), and even says that "going mad" is nothing more than leaving
>Western IntPoVs for non-Western views (a "crazy person" is one w/
>unreasonable view who can't be persuaded to change those views no matter
>what kind of air-tite logic you argue w/). On the other hand, in a
l>etter to Anthony, RMP *defined* the IntPoVs as the values of reason,
>clarity, comunicability and logical soundness (this would mean a crazy
>person has -no- IntPoVs) -- so, personaly, I don't think Pirsig is clear
>in his own head about this topic.
Well, Donny, i don't agree with the above, but i don't want to get into it
right now
maybe in another post.
xcto
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