Hi David B. and Group:
DAVID B:
I honestly don't see how its self-contradictory to think beyond the
bounds of ideology. Should we assume that "intellectual nirvana" is
a phrase you invented merely to mock me or is there some real
reason we ought to object to increasing one's knowledge? I think
the danger lies in the opposite direction. And doesn't the MOQ say
that we are free to the extent that we are free from static patterns.
And aren't these ideologies just different sets of static patterns?
We're supposed to try and get free of such limitation in favor of the
Dynamic, no?
PLATT:
I honestly don’t see how you can think any thought without having
an ideology, such as the ideology that it’s good (more evolutionary
or whatever) to think beyond ideology. The self-contradiction is that
in thought there’s no such thing as “no ideology.” Both your letter
and my response are replete with ideologies, as is every other
utterance ever made. At the intellectual level you can’t escape from
ideologies (metaphysics) any more than you can escape from
values at any level. The Dynamic, as you know, is prior to and
beyond thought (ideology) of any kind. I don’t think Pirsig suggests
we free ourselves from the intellect in favor of becoming mindless
observers of the passing scene, waiting for the Dynamic to tell us
something.
DAVID B:
You don't have any good reason to invent sinister motives and then
ascribe them to people you've never met. Your reasoning is utterly
specious here. Environmentalism and multiculturalism have nothing
to do with the dull-witted and hypocritical straw men you attack,
but you may be on to something. Perhaps you could locate those
causes on the hierarchy of ideologies and we could get an idea
about how "evolutionary status" such views. Or are you just
cleverly and ironically demonstrating what an anti-intellectual
philosopher looks like?
PLATT:
Do you deny that some environmentalists preach that all life forms
have equal value? Do you deny that some multiculturists hold that
all cultural perspectives are to be respected?. I do not attack straw
people. Such injunctions espoused by some academics are
common knowledge. Whether I’ve personally met them or not is
totally irrelevant. Lots of nice people are unaware of their self-
contradictory and thus anti-intellectual beliefs.
DAVID B:
Isn't Pirsig talking about the same thing here? I mean that's the
point, freedom from conformist ideologies is a good thing, right?
And I think its wrong to characterize Pirsig's criticism of the
intellect as a warning against "over indulgence". You're not
suggesting that we ought to fear thoughts that are too clear, too
precise or too informed, are you? You're not advocating ignorance
as a desired state are you? Pirsig's warnings are about scientific
objectivity, SOM and other flaws in the intellect, not the intellectual
level itself.
PLATT:
Ah. When you add “conformist” in front of ideologies we begin to
arrive at common ground. Yes, freedom from conformity is
sometimes a good thing, including conformity to an ideal of
nonconfomity. Nor am I advocating ignorance. Admitting that
intellect has flaws is what I didn’t hear from you before. (Maybe you
said it all along; I just didn’t hear it.) That’s really the whole point of
my response to your post. Admitting flaws in intellect is the
beginning of MOQ wisdom, IMHO.
DAVID B:
This is pure speculation and insult. You say nothing at all about
the ideas or principles at issue. Instead you just demonstrate a
blanket condemnation of "intellectuals" in general. How about a
little less attitude and a little more substance. Why be so mean?
And who, my friend, is howling like a stuck pig?
PLATT:
Well, this says nothing about the ideas or principles at issue,
either. I may be at fault, but why imitate my shortcomings?
DAVID B:
If I understand this quote correctly, Pirsig is simply saying that
intellectual values should rule, but that SOM is a flawed set of such
values. I really don't see how it can be interpreted as an anti-
intellectual statement. Pirsig is an intellectual, after all. MOQ is
supposed to repair that flawed intellect and my posts on the
difference between the social and intellectual level have been very
much about that repair job. Explaining the conflict between the top
two levels is a huge part of that repair job, no? I hope you don't
imagine that I'm in favor of SOM or scientific objectivity. And I
should add that it not precisely correct to say that I think
"intellectuals should rule society". I'm just saying that intellectual
values are more evolved and we ought to go them in cases of
conflict with social level values. Its not about some Philosopher
King or the Republic of college professors.
PLATT:
Thank goodness. I was beginning to wonder.(Just kidding). By all
means, let’s go to intellectual values in case of conflict with social
level values. But I would add, let’s intellectually understand and
take into account the vital role played by social level values in our
general well being if not our very survival, especially during times of
total war.
DAVID B:
But, "As far as Phaedrus knew, that question had NEVER BEEN
successfully answered". So how can you say Lila answers it? I
think Lila only helps us understand what the question means.
"Was this (SOM) the intellectual pattern it (The intellectual level)
was going to run society with?" That's a question that will only be
answered in the future, right? We're just going to have to wait and
see WHAT KIND of intellect rules society. The intellectual level is
in charge already. Pirsig describes it as a matter of historical fact.
You know, 1918, WW1, death of the Victorians and all that.
PLATT:
I read the sentence to mean that the question had never been
successfully answered (past tense), until Lila. Pirsig says SOM
has failed to run society right now, not some time in the future. No
wait and see for him. The kind of intellect he wants to rule society
is the kind that recognizes that reality and morality are the
same—a “moral” type of intellect if you will as opposed to an
objective, scientific, SOM type. But Pirsig knows that in order for
that kind of intellect to take hold, the metaphysical (ideological)
foundation for it has to be put in place. And that’s what his MOQ
tries to do, don’t you think?
Platt
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:14 BST