From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Aug 16 2003 - 08:13:19 BST
Platt, Paul and People
13 Aug. Platt said:
> This quote below is extremely important to understand the
> relationship between society and intellect:
...citing Pirsig in Lila's Child:
"It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that
although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came
first, actually 'common sense' which is A SET OF IDEAS, has
to come first. This 'common sense' is arrived at through a web
of SOCIALLY APPROVED EVALUATIONS of various
alternatives. The key term here is 'evaluation', i.e. quality
decisions. The fundamental reality is not the common sense
or the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the
approval itself and the quality that leads to it." Lila's Child Note
97
This is almost identical to the quote Rick that confronted me with
(from a letter to Anthony McWatt): My brackets.
And in this highest quality intellectual pattern (SOM), external
objects (matter) appear historically before intellectual (mind)
patterns... But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself
(SOM) comes before the external world, not after, as is
commonly presumed by the materialist.".
Starting from the thinking-defined-intellect premise the first quote
may look patent ...as long as it lasts: The point about inorganic
nature came first as a "set of ideas" seems OK, but isn't the notion
that the "common sense" were arrived at from "socially approved
evaluations ..." ALSO a set of ideas? In fact when intellect is defined
as thinking EVERYTHING dissolves into "sets of ideas" - even DQ
itself! Figments of our mind! Exactly as in SOM's idealism. I think
Paul spotted these incongruities, as he hurried on to safer ground. (I
omit his part because it doesn't count in this context.)
From the last quote: "In this highest ....... etc." - which is SOM -
external objects - which is matter - appear before mind! This is only
the materialist half of SOM, the idealist part says the opposite, exactly
what the annotating Pirsig says, but NOT what the MOQ of ZMM and
(most of) LILA says. But once the disastrous "idea/mind/thinking"
definition of intellect is made it all goes haywire. Sam said that Pirsig
has moved from a radical to a conservative, but can the MOQ endure
any such movement without being re-swallowed by SOM?
Not IMO.
Bo
PS
When Matt struck down on Platt I hoped it was for these reasons, but
he som other axe to grind ;-)
On 13 Aug 2003 at 12:03, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > No, I think the intellectual level is completely discrete in that
> > there are no "ideas" or "symbols" at the social level. However,
> > culture in the MOQ is social patterns plus intellectual patterns. I
> > think the relationship between social and intellectual experience
> > accounts for the way some intellectual patterns are "legal" and some
> > ideas are "illegal" in a particular culture and why Pirsig can
> > define insanity as an intellectual pattern. A thinking person is
> > also a social entity and is subject to social forces and evaluations
> > which define the common sense, or mythos of a particular culture.
> > This quote below is extremely important to understand the
> > relationship between society and intellect:
>
> > "It is important for an understanding of the MOQ to see that
> > although 'common sense' dictates that inorganic nature came first,
> > actually 'common sense' which is A SET OF IDEAS, has to come first.
> > This 'common sense' is arrived at through a web of SOCIALLY APPROVED
> > EVALUATIONS of various alternatives. The key term here is
> > 'evaluation', i.e. quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not
> > the common sense or the objects and laws approved of by common sense
> > but the approval itself and the quality that leads to it." Lila's
> > Child Note 97
>
> First, thanks for giving the reference in Lila's Child, the dialogue
> between Glover and Pirsig, page 526. I too think the quote is
> extremely important, not only for the reasons you cite, but also
> because it emphasizes EVALUATION, DECISIONS, and APPROVAL as an
> integral part of FUNDAMENTAL REALITY. In other words, to judge, to
> discriminate and to prefer are highly moral activities. Compare this
> to the currently widely circulated moral beliefs that it's wrong to be
> judgmental, wrong to hold someone in higher esteem than another, and
> wrong to question the ideal of equality. Those who proclaim such
> virtues ignore the self- contradiction in the adage, "Judge not lest
> ye be judged." But more to the point, they ignore the basis of reality
> itself--Quality. As Pirsig wrote, "You can't even get out of bed in
> the morning without making a VALUE JUDGMENT that it is better to do
> so." (LC, Note 124)
>
> I conclude that the sooner that some socially approved ideas die a
> natural death--like multiculturism and moral relativity--the better.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov
> '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries -
> horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 16 2003 - 08:14:03 BST