David Buchanan wrote on Sat, 9 Jan 1999
> BODVAR, ROGER, STRUAN and all those who posted Jan 6, 7 and 8:
> I just had three days off work and finished re-reading Lila, so I'm
> fresh and ready.
> BO, ROGER: Thanks for responding directly to the question posed; what
> does each level value? There were no disagreements worth mentioning, but
> I was thinking of more detailed answers concerning "real life"
> situations. You know, like the way Pirsig describes the Zunis, the
> Victorians and Lila herself as various patterns in conflict. Didn't
> think you'd get off that easy did you? Try this question as an example;
> "What values are in conflict in the current case of the impeachment of
> the U.S. President?"
Hi David
I thought I had got away with my general account of what the various
levels value, but you present me with the impeachment process against
President Clinton. Phew! Earlier I have refused such examples on the
ground that the MOQ is too general, much like calculating a satellite
orbit by General Relativity, something that would occupy all
computers collectivly for years.... and the result would be exactly
the same as with Newtonian equations. MOQ is for the extreme
all-encompassing, but there it is the only calculus that works.
Much of the political business is Social value: power, fame, money,
celebrity, but Intellect infers heavily by demanding that the
intersocial struggle must play itself out within the democratic
frame so there is an ever-ongoing "conflict" there. Before
Intellectual value made it into the front line of the human
experience, the despots of old just chopped the heads off ..in turn.
The impeachment - its history and the process itself - is
such an Intellect vs Social conflict; almost everything is and has
been so for the last centuries. The Social level's control of Biology
is so unbelievable old that we don't question it (not even the
horniest person will perform a sexual act like an animal [but will do
if member of a society (club) where such is the norm]) while
Intellect's control of Society still is not fully established.
The above does not mean that the Soc/Bio. conflict is removed;
that will never happen, but as said, even if Clinton was deep in
bilogy with Miss Levinsky, he was aware of its social "badness" and
wanted to keep it secret. Likewise even if Intellect's conflict with
Society is in the process of being won (in the West nobody in
their right mind will question democratic rules) it will simmer under
the lid for ever. Mr Starr might hate (emotion=social medium)
Clinton, but he has to keep up a "defence of democracy" shield.
This sort of analysis was perhaps not what you thought about
David? Yet, it is impossible to cut it clearer and say that Clinton
represents this value, the Senate that value and/or M. Levinsky
another. The value levels pervades all existence and thereby all
human beings, everyone alternate between all value dimensions
thousands of times a day. lt'd jam our brains to try to run the MOQ
"program" on such a particular situation.
Earlier I said (to Jonathans great dismay) that Intellect's moral
goes a long way sorting out real life problems (it's what we use 99%
of the time anyway), while keeping the overall Q-picture in mind.
His (Jonathan's) exasperation stems from his different view of what
the (Q) social value means. In the human experience it has nothing to
do with being a nice guy.
I agree with most of what you write in the rest of this message.
Perhaps does Glen Dickey have a point about the Logos over Mythos
question; I'll have to think that over a little, but otherwise:
Great! We badly need some who intuit the Quality idea.
Bodvar
PS.
Re. your "grand tour" of the MOQ universe that arrived today.
Even greater! One thing though: I am not so sure of Plato being a
good guy in Pirsig's book, and about Intellect being SO-Metaphysics.
It's merely SO in my SOLAQI, but that is perhaps your very point. Let
me return to it and to Glen's objection to your mythos-logos
assertion.
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 - 16:02:49 BST