Hi Jonathan and Squad
JONATHAN:
> Horses footer reads:-
> <<<
> "Prejudice is the greatest labour saving device known to man,
> it enables one to form an opinion without having to go to
> the trouble of checking the facts.
> >>>
>
> Why do I feel that Horse "prejudges" my post of 7th Dec where I first
> suggested that Intellect didn't really fit AS A LEVEL.
> In that post, I claimed that what we and Pirsig have been calling
> Intellectual Values might more conveniently be called Social Values e.g.
First let me say that I have no objection to your proposal of a 3 level system for
MoQ - or is that too condescending :) - and that I didn't think the idea was
rubbish. As it happens, I read your post carefully before I posted, gave it a lot
(well, alright, quite a bit) of thought and came to the conclusion that I disagree
with you. If there is no independent Intellectual level then your statement:
"We INTELLECTUALISE patterns of all 3 levels (laws of physics, biology and
society)"
doesn't appear to make sense. By your own criteria this could equally well be
replaced with:
"We SOCIALISE patterns of all 3 levels (laws of physics, biology and society)"
You say later that individual thinking falls into the biological level and collective
thinking is a part of the social level but I would disagree with that on the grounds
that this puts instinct, learned response, conscious decision making and
contemplative thought on the same footing - biology - which also doesn't make
sense. All are individualistic and yet the qualitative difference seems glaringly
obvious. Your statement also means that any other form thought is no more than
collective agreement and in any case, how do we think collectively - that's absurd.
JONATHAN:
> HORSE:-
> >As far as I'm aware the MoQ is based upon 4 levels of value.
> Pirsig DOES say this, but he also confuses it by talking about 5 types
> of morality.
Which are based upon 4 static levels and DQ. Why is this confusing?
JONATHAN:
> >When this changes
> >to 3 it is at this point that the MoQ gets mauled. But why bother to
> stop at 3?
> >Why not just go for one or even better no levels,...
>
> Why indeed? We should stop with whatever seems the most useful. It
> wasn't so long ago that Horse himself considered the utility of adding a
> 5th level!
Ha! Now it's you that needs to go back and read my posts and then read my
current footer again. In a number of posts I made it clear that this proposal was a
thought experiment designed to provoke thought about the levels - ring any bells?
What I didn't do though was slap labels on others or accuse anyone of mauling
the MoQ. Well, not a lot anyway :) With three levels your only one short step
away from SOM with all it's problems and contradictions.
JONATHAN:
> >after all there is no empirical
> >evidence for the existence of anything.
> Horse! Since you bring up empiricism, I ask you to bring some EMPIRICAL
> EVIDENCE to support the distinction of Intellectual from Social
> patterns:-)
But the whole point about empirical evidence and the scientific method as it
currently stands is that it is only applicable at the inorganic level. Empiricism and
the scientific method are partly to do with the refutation of solipsism. Of course I
could use the same method that you do and state that I *KNOW* that the
Intellectual and Social levels are distinct patterns of value operating at different
levels, deriving my knowledge from sense data - my sense of quality. Or
alternatively make a perfectly reasonable case, by implication, from the effect of
removal of the Intellect as a seperate level and the addition of ad hoc clauses to
empirical process and scientific method. But it would take far too long :(
>
> JONATHAN:-
> > The prime value in our society is the wallet.
>
> HORSE
> <<<
> I'm sure Rupert Murdoch, Bill Gates, Robert Maxwell, Margaret ("There is
> no
> society, only individuals") Thatcher, General Pinochet, Idi Amin, Adolf
> Hitler, Pol
> Pot et. al. would agree with you. Is this the company you would prefer
> to keep?
>
> Or would you prefer the company of Galileo, Jefferson, Martin Luther
> King, Gandhi
> and others who prefered to believe that truth, freedom and the rights of
> the person -
> all intellectual values - are of greater value than money and power -
> social values
> [snip]
>
> If you prefer the dominance of the intellect by society then that's your
> choice - but
> I think I'll stick with what's right and what's good.
> >>>
>
> I call it for what it is. Unfortunately, it is not up to me personally
> to determine society's values.
> But I know what *I* consider right and good. One thing I *know* is that
> movements which have *claimed* to place intellect and logic first have
> been responsible for some of the most immoral behaviour known to man.
As immoral as the holocaust, or the gassing of Iraqui kurds or the slaughter of
East Timorians or the genocide of native americans or ..... the list continues from
the past into the future unless human rights, which are the product of the level
society would destroy, are recognized and upheld. But if you insist, the next time
I see an idea with a Kalashnikov I'll reproach it on behalf of social values. When
you say "it is not up to me personally to determine society's values" you are, in
effect, saying "I am allowing others to make my decisions". If by supporting the
rights of myself and others to life, freedom of expression, freedom from the fear of
torture and other expressions of the intellectual level I am undermining social
values then I'm happy to do so.
Horse
***********************************************************************
"Prejudice is the greatest labour saving device known to man,
it enables one to form an opinion without having to go to
the trouble of checking the facts.
Quote from Stephen Fry - Source Unknown
(Could be Oscar Wilde ??)
************************************************************************
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 - 16:02:44 BST