From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Wed Mar 17 2004 - 14:40:51 GMT
Hi Wim, All Junkies,
Wim said:
> I don't agree that there is (or has been) a war between the
> intellectual and
> social level anywhere. In my definitions of intellectual and social
> patterns
> of value they are too discrete to be at war.
Steve:
I also have tried to encourage distinguishing the levels which are best
understood as collections of static patterns of value from types of
people. Referring to someone as a social level person can not mean
that they are literally "on the social level" (since Pirsig states that
a person is a forest of static patterns of all types) but rather that
their intellectual arguments tend to be marked by support for social
control of ideas, i.e. the belief that intellect exists to help
preserve the social order, over intellectual freedom from social
control. I think our discussions would gain much clarity if we were all
more careful to distinguish types of people (which are all forests of
static patterns of all types) from types of patterns of value which are
discrete.
Case in point is Platt and DMBs on-going argument over whether the
liberal or conservative represents the intellectual level person.
Perhaps it would move their discussions forward to identify specific
patterns of value and to categorize those patterns instead of types of
people, e.g. one another.
Wim said:
> (I know, in 'Lila' Pirsig not only states that the levels are
> discrete, but
> also uses the 'war' metaphor for the relation between these levels.
> For me
> this implies an inconsistency in his ideas. Maybe because he is an
> American
> too? (-;)
> There can be a war between people behaving in accordance with a lower
> quality social pattern of value and people behaving in accordance with
> a
> higher quality social pattern of value. War, and more generally 'us
> versus
> them' behaviour, is a relatively low quality social pattern of value
> anyway,
> lower than cooperative behaviour.
> They can motivate their behaviour using intellectual patterns of value
> of
> different quality. (Those behaving in accordance with a higher quality
> social pattern of value don't necessary motivate their behaviour with
> the
> highest quality intellectual pattern of value...)
> Unthinking behavioural patterns (collective 'habits') can't be at war
> with
> patterns of motivation of behaviour (or patterns of understanding
> reality,
> that are also part of the intellectual level), however.
>
Steve:
Exactly. RMP addressed this issue and clarified what he means by the
conflict of values in LC:
"After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social and
intellectual patterns are found existing together in the same person.
II think the conflicts mentioned here are intellectual conflicts in
which one side clings to an intellectual justification of existing
social patterns and the other side intellectually opposes the existing
social patterns."
Wim said:
> I don't think it clarifies the discussion to associate 'the
> intellectual
> level' with 'intellectuals'. 'Intellectual' is a role in a social
> pattern of
> value.
Steve:
Very much agree. This is exactly the sort of distinction that will
give clarity to our discussions.
Thanks,
Steve
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 : Wed Mar 17 2004 - 17:04:14 GMT