XCTO ABSOLUTELY AGREES WITH PLATTS POST
'nuff said
hey read it again or delete it now
In a message dated 12/7/98 9:23:46 AM Pacific Standard Time,
pholden5@earthlink.net writes:
> > As you think on that one, let's move on to intellectual
> > patterns. Platt
> > previously
> > summarized that there are three distinct types (at least) of thoughts.
> > 1)Reverie, or
> > automatic thinking, 2) decision making, and 3) what I characterize as
> > logically consistent
> > reality models.
> >
> > This is disturbing though. How can the first two types of thoughts be
> > considered superior
> > to social patterns? How can Pirsig state that "i want a
> > cookie" type thoughts
> > is morally
> > superior to a government or religion? This is silly.
Magnus agreed:
> Yes, doesn't make sense at all. Each member of a government
> would be more moral than the government as a whole.?
If this is the prevailing view of the LS and today's young people, I fear for
the future. The most trivial of a person's thoughts are more valuable than
any government or religion. And yes, each member of a government is
more moral than the government as a whole. (Read America's
Declaration of Independence).
Pirsig makes this clear in Lila, Chapter 13, when he explains the
immorality of capital punishment:
“What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a biological
organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society. Whenever you
kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too. A human being
is a collection of ideas, and these ideas take moral precedence over
society. Ideas are patterns of value. They are at a higher level of
evolution than social patterns of value. Just as it is more moral for a
doctor to kill a germ than a patient, so it is more moral for an idea to kill
a
society than it is for a society to kill an idea.
"And beyond that is an even more compelling reason: societies and
thoughts and principles themselves are no more than static patterns.
These patterns can't by themselves perceive or adjust to Dynamic
Quality. Only a living being can do that. The strongest moral argument
against capital punishment is that it weakens a society's Dynamic
capability--its capability for change and evolution."
What seems to missing in the discussions of the intellectual level so far
are the concepts of individual uniqueness and privacy. My thoughts (my
intellectual patterns) are unique to me and unknown to anyone else
unless I choose to make them public (social patterns), whereupon they
become static (spoken or written patterns).
Everyone enjoys private thoughts. No one can read your mind. Call it
awareness, mental activity, reasoning, intelligence, intellectualizing,
reverie, decision making or whatever you like--it's your own, special,
individual, unique, solitary, exclusive self-being that’s yours and yours
alone.
That is what constitutes the intellectual level--millions of individual, one-
of-
a-kind idea generating minds. That is what raises it above the social level.
The social level never had a thought of its own. Given it's druthers, the
social level abducts minds to suit its own purposes, as did Fascism and
Communism. The intellectual level says, "Oh no you don't. My mind is my
own. It belongs to me. I will fight to keep it free of your brute force."
Of course, within the intellectual level is a spectrum of quality just as in
the other levels. Some thoughts are low, others medium, a few high.
Diana's intellect telling here to go watch Friends on the telly is of lower
quality (a social desire) than her intellect saying, "I think Bodvar needs to
explain some more ..." (a desire for truth). But her intellect, be it high or
low, good or bad, brilliant or stupid at any given moment, is the most
precious thing in the world--the only thing that can respond to Dynamic
Quality--and thus belongs at the top of the moral hierarchy, far above
government with its tanks ready to mow down her or anyone else that
gets in its way.
The intellectual level can be defined as my singular private thought
patterns and yours and everyone else’s–-individually. When I or you put
them out for others to see on the LS or elsewhere, they become seminal
social patterns that may or may not conceive.
Pirsig put his thought patterns out there in two books and a speech,
suggesting that the assumptions of his MoQ are better than those of
SOM, leading to higher quality thought patterns. I think he’s right.
Platt >>
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 - 16:02:43 BST