Hi Roger and Squad,
Roger says:
>I asked if a thought like "I want a cookie" is superior to (for example)
the US
>government and the constitutional protections. Platt indirectly challenged
>this stating that "The most trivial of a person's thoughts are more
valuable
>than any government or religion."
>
>At first I bought this, but........ It is absurd! The Socio-intellectual
>pattern of freedom of speech and thought is MUCH more important than
thinking
>you want a cookie or that you want to shoot a school kid.
I agree with you Roger. A thought such as I want a cookie originates from
the biological level. I thought such as I want to shoot a school kid
originates from the social/emotional level. I don't "think" these are
intellectual level thoughts.
>Donny has made some great arguments that it isn't one's thought (Robinson
>Crusoe thoughts) that determine an IPoV, it is an IPoV in society shared
>between others. Several members,and Pirsig himself, have commented that
>intellectual patterns are absolutely floating in a sea of society.
I agree that intellectual patterns are floating in a sea of society, but
disagree with the statement that it isn't one's thought that determines an
IPoV. I think it is exactly one's thoughts that determine an IPoV. To me,
the IPoV is thought. It is floating in a sea of social, biological, and
inorganic patterns.
>Putting these concepts together, doesn't it make more sense to say that:
>"The Social Pattern That Values Freedom , Truth, and Clarity is Superior to
>Other Social Patterns."
Yes, I think so. A social pattern valuing freedom, truth, and clarity is
superior to other social patterns because it is an enabler for the
intellectual level.
>Could Pirsig have confused "Freedom of Thought" or "Value of Thought" with
>"Thought"?
>
>Don't get me wrong, I see that valueing freedom of thought and truth and
>science, requires the elevation of the right to think ANY THOUGHT.... even
"I
>want a cookie". But we are guilty of confusing the Social Right to think
>Freely with the thought that was thunk.
All thoughts that were thunk are not necessarily of the same level of Value.
The intellect floats in a sea consisting of all the levels that have come
before it. As such, there are bound to be thoughts that are an expression
of the needs/wants/desires of all the lower levels; biological thoughts,
social thoughts, even inorganic thoughts. The social value of the right to
think freely is a high quality social level value. This value is of high
quality because it allows the intellectual level free riegn to think about
anything. And since the intellectual level is a more advanced level this is
good.
>Pirsig was wrong. Insanity and thoughts of malice and trivial thoughts
aren't
>the highest level. In fact these are low value socio-intellectual
patterns.
>The highest level socio-intellectual pattern is to value logically
consistent
>free ideas.
I agree that logically consistent free ideas are the highest intellectual
level value developed so far, but I disagree with saying Pirsig was wrong.
I simply think you are misinterpreting Pirsig.
>Primitives valued the Strong
>Victorians valued the Holy or the Charismatic
>The Enlightened value the Truth
>
>These are social or socio-intellectual patterns. There are three levels ,
not
>four!
No, I still think there are 4 levels. Those you have cited are good
illustrations of the ratcheting up of the social level under the influence
of the intellectual.
Mary
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